CANADA

VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 108 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, May 25, 1998

Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.)

All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 7091

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Monday, May 25, 1998

The House met at 11 a.m. Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000. ______We in the official opposition are pleased that the motion is receiving so much support in the House. Prayers

______The motion clearly states that the federal government should develop a national head start program along with its provincial counterparts. This would be a comprehensive program for all PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Canadian children in their first eight years of their life. As a member of parliament I have divided my mandate into four D (1100) components of society which I would like to focus on. They are: [English] youth, senior citizens, families and women. I find this helpful in my work because, for example, I find that I learn a great deal about NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM youth when I meet with students at schools.

The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion. We should provide a good start in life for our children. Our Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the federal government tries to help all children through our health and Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, education programs. The motion simply asks the federal govern- discussions have taken place among all parties and the member for ment to concentrate on our children in the first eight years of their Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca concerning the taking of the division on life, which is a critical stage in a child’s development. M-261 scheduled for today at the conclusion of Private Members’ Business and I believe that you will find consent for the following: We know that inadequate attention and nurturing for our young- That at the conclusion of today’s debate on M-261, all questions necessary to sters can often lead to subsequent developmental difficulties. We dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed know that with a poor start the life of a child is at risk of winding up requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the wrong side of the law. Our federal government should be today. interested in any opportunities that result in successful crime The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard prevention. We spend more money dealing with criminals than on the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the early detection and prevention of crime. The dollars spent on motion? providing a good head start for our children will result in the saving of many dollars in the future that would have been spent dealing Some hon. members: Agreed. with anti-social and criminal behaviour. (Motion agreed to) The government has already implemented head start programs D (1105 ) for our aboriginal communities. They have been primarily limited to reserves, but most aboriginal people living off reserve and Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I non-aboriginal people also need this kind of program. We should rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in favour of treat all Canadians equally. Motion No. 261 as proposed by my hon. colleague from Esqui- malt—Juan de Fuca. We have head start programs for our aboriginal children. Why The motion states: are head start programs not available to other children who are not living on reserve? That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves This motion proposes that the government explore models based both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head on the Perry Preschool Program, among others. 7092 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business This government’s National Crime Prevention Council has been This brings us to the heart of the role of our federal government. very of supportive a national head start program. On page 2 of Far from being threatened, Quebec should be anxious to share its the executive summary of its 1996 report it states: technology and some of its successful programs with the rest of the country. The Bloc members should also support this motion.

D (1110 ) Our federal government should pursue this motion and pool our resources to reduce the cost of implementation. Ideas and successes There is ample evidence that well-designed social development programs can prevent crime and be cost-effective. Rigorous evaluations, mainly American, show could be shared. National standards would ensure that children that crime prevention through social development pays handsome dividends. from all parts of this country receive the necessary assistance and protection in a national head start program. In almost 30 years of participant follow-up the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan has been shown to be responsible for very significantly reducing juvenile and adult crime. Back in August 1996 the former minister of justice commented about the justice system and how the harm has already been done by the time people come before the courts. He stated ‘‘We must do The Secretary of State for Children and Youth has already more than deal with the symptoms of the problem. We must go to spoken to this motion on behalf of the Liberals. She acknowledges the source’’. Programs, as proposed by this motion, go to the the success of the aboriginal head start program and pointed out source. that funding had doubled due to its benefits. In 1996 the Child Welfare League of Canada argued the need to We need to expand our efforts to include the protection of all create a comprehensive and permanent universal program across children and to assist needy parents to properly nurture and care for Canada to address funding for early intervention measures to assist our country’s children. our children. I would like to give an example. Sandor Nyerges was a constitu- The motion we are debating should be supported by all members ent of mine and a veteran of the two great wars. He was deaf, mute, of this House, but especially by Liberals. The motion is not in 80 years old and lived alone. He became the victim of a ferocious conflict with the comments made by the secretary of state. attack by an assailant who has a long record as a young offender. My constituent died in the hospital from that attack. The alleged assailant was apparently intoxicated, a youth, possibly on drugs. It is known that healthy babies become healthy children. Hospi- tals could screen all new mothers to identify babies and families D (1115 ) who may need extra support and services. The constituents of Surrey Central and I are furious. In Surrey Supporting this motion would pave the way for providing high and elsewhere we hear about such crimes day after day. We have risk families with the parenting help needed to avoid child abuse had another murder in Surrey, a caretaker at the Sikh temple, and neglect. another victim of youth.

If our federal government had been acting in a timely fashion in The official opposition justice critic spoke on this motion during the direction of the motion we are debating today, maybe Sandor its second hour of debate. He recounted that during the justice and many other Canadians might not have been assaulted or committee’s recent 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act the murdered. committee travelled across the country. It listened to witnesses. It heard experts, professionals and lay people who have an interest in At the Princess Margaret Senior Secondary School in Surrey in the whole area of the development of youth and the prevention of March 1998 I met with students shortly after Sandor died. During youth crime. During the hearings experts told the committee that my meeting with these students they raised the issue of crime as a teachers could detect aberrant and over-aggressive behaviour in major concern. children as early as grades one, two and three. This is just another example of how the government continues to The Bloc fears that the motion encroaches into the area of put the rights of the accused first and the safety of Canadians provincial jurisdiction. As such, it has tied this motion into the second. The government does not have a national head start Canadian unity debate. That is unfortunate. program. In closing I would like to say that Canadians are suffering. We In Quebec the justice committee found programs that are far want safer streets and safer communities. We want the Liberal ahead of some of the other provinces. That province has done an government to respond to society’s justice needs. That is why we excellent job. There are programs in Quebec that ought to be should all support Motion No. 261. looked at and perhaps emulated by other provinces if they have a real concern about dealing with early detection and preventive Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with programs. great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion No. 261 put May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7093

Private Members’ Business forward by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The member Hants Shore Health Clinic that work on these head start and early continues to demonstrate his commitment to progressive social intervention programs. policy. I have spoken about this issue previously in the House and it is with great pride that I do so today. There are other programs in my community, including an adult literacy program which is being promoted by Patricia Helliwell. It Good government means providing the vehicle for a prosperous is achieving significant progress with people who have fallen Canadian economy and also ensuring equality of opportunity in through the cracks in the system early on. I commend that adult that prosperous economy. literacy program for its commendable work and its effectiveness in helping provide these people with an opportunity.

The best economic system to provide prosperity is the free market, but the free market is only sustainable if all citizens have I cannot help but think what if we really started to deal with the access to the economic levers. I believe that if we were to roots of the problem. What if we got to these people earlier, when implement a national head start program and focus on early they were children and a significant impact could be made. Then intervention, we would be going a long way in addressing the someday perhaps we would not need adult literacy programs in equality of opportunity and the access to those levers. Canada because all Canadians would have achieved a basic compe- tence in communication and literacy.

Recently several issues have been debated in the House and focused on by the Canadian people. One is the Liberal govern- D (1120 ) ment’s $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund introduced in Bill C-36 which will be debated later on and which has been debated The government has chosen a different more politically palatable quite extensively in the House lately. Another is the government’s route. It has decided to use the memorial fund for the Prime new posturing on the Young Offenders Act. Not surprisingly the Minister. This Canadian millennium scholarship fund will only Liberals have missed the point on both programs. benefit 7% of Canadian students who attend university when it is implemented two years from now. If the government had put this Motion No. 261 speaks to a process that is far more admirable, $2.5 billion toward a national head start program, it would have effective and economical than these government sponsored pro- provided a better economic return on that money for Canadians. grams. Motion No. 261 is an early intervention program that promotes prevention instead of punishment. However the Liberal Party’s focus group and polling data have told it to spend the money on university students, that post-secon- dary education is a more politically palatable initiative than is early Study after study suggests that one dollar invested in a child in intervention. The facts are contrary to this. Experts on post-secon- the formative years, particularly between birth and three years of dary education will agree that the best bang for the buck for the age, and some studies say birth and six years of age, can deliver a Canadian taxpayer is to invest in the youngest of Canadians, those six dollar and some say a seven dollar return on a child during those Canadians who are most vulnerable to negative influences and who formative years. Some studies indicate that a one dollar investment can benefit most from positive influences, those between birth and in a child between birth and the age of three will provide a return of the age of three. seven dollars to society.

I assume based on focus groups and polling data that the Programs like the head start program in Moncton, New Bruns- government has recently decided to get tough with young offend- wick offer this alternative, an economic return already in Canada. ers. Arguably it is extremely important that the Young Offenders Not all areas are so fortunate. Act be tightened and that young people be made more responsible for their actions. Again the Liberals have really missed the point. From personal experience, I grew up on the Hants shore in rural Nova Scotia. In grade 6 there were 23 students who left grade 6 at Harsher penalties will not prevent young people from commit- the same time I did to go to another school. Only 8 of those ting crimes. We must address the flaws in the Young Offenders Act students ever graduated from high school, 8 out of 23. I have some but what can we do to prevent these young people from turning degree of experience and indeed a very personal empathy for this toward crime? Why are we not dealing with these issues in a more issue. holistic manner instead of by knee-jerk reaction and crisis manage- ment? The real answer is early intervention. A national head start program would go a long way toward addressing that. More recently in that community there has been significant progress by that school. The Dr. Arthur Hines School has become a leader in Nova Scotia in terms of providing equality of opportunity A stable and caring environment during a child’s formative years in rural Nova Scotia. I commend the principal, Hazel Dill, for her offers the best opportunity to provide a productive and stable hard work. I also commend grassroots organizations such as the adolescence and ultimately a productive and prosperous adulthood. 7094 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business Studies have demonstrated that this early intervention is one of the have provided the equality of opportunity which is necessary to best social policy approaches. allow all Canadians to participate in growth. As an Atlantic Canadian it is very important to me that we continue to work to this In the finance committee hearings earlier this month I ques- end. tioned Professor David Stager from the University of Toronto. I asked him how he felt about early intervention. Professor Stager is I would urge every member of this House to consider very an expert on post-secondary education. When I asked him how he carefully and to support this motion. I think it is very important for felt about the investment we could potentially make in early us, when provided with the opportunity, to make the right deci- intervention he said that the best bang for the buck would be before sions, to make decisions that will last much longer than many of us school. There was a splendid synthesis done this past fall of the will be in this House and to provide those types of benefits. It research in the area of human capital. It concluded that early would be an affront to the people who put us here not to do so. intervention has the greatest pay-off for a number of reasons. Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I This man is an expert on post-secondary education and an am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today advocate for post-secondary education who has spent his life on this motion advocating a national head start program for advocating investment in areas of post-secondary education. He Canadian children. told the finance committee that the best investment for society to make is in early intervention before children even get to elementa- ry school where much damage could have already occurred if I want to applaud the hon. member for his strong support of early positive environments were not provided earlier. childhood development. The Government of Canada shares his enthusiasm for early childhood development as a way of positively influencing the health of children. In fact the government has made I commend the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his increased knowledge of and action on early childhood development forward thinking and his commitment to progressive social policy. a top priority. His motion would be very effective in addressing the real needs of Canadians at a very critical time. We are entering the 21st century. We have a global knowledge based economy that will generate the In the next few minutes I would like to share with the House economic growth of the 21st century. some of the things we have learned about early childhood develop- ment and how this knowledge is shaping our approach to preven- We in this House can make a difference so it is absolutely tion and early intervention initiatives on behalf of Canada’s imperative that we focus on ensuring that young Canadians have children. every opportunity. If we as public policy makers and parliamentari- ans can ensure that young Canadians do not just have as good a The most important thing we have learned from a vast body of chance but that they have a better opportunity than people in other research over the last 30 years is that the experiences of Canadian countries, we will be doing a great deal to ensure that Canada is on children especially in their early years profoundly influence their a firm footing and that young Canadians are poised to participate health and well-being throughout their lives. actively and prosper in the new economy. We have long known that early negative factors such as low birth This type of commitment will prevent the necessity of a TAGS weight, low income, abuse, neglect and poor physical and mental program in the 21st century. It will prevent the necessity of a lot of health are barriers to healthy child development. Government the social investment that has been more reactive than proactive. initiatives such as the community action program for children, the Canada prenatal nutrition program and aboriginal head start have D (1125 ) achieved considerable success in responding to these factors.

As an Atlantic Canadian, I have watched over the years as Nevertheless, research and experience tell us we must do more to successive governments have tried to effectively deal with the recognize and support positive factors that contribute to healthy situation in Atlantic Canada frankly by using money on social development. These factors range from healthy pregnancies and spending as opposed to social investment. Unfortunately these birth weights to loving parents, to supportive mentors or role governments in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the risks models, to caring families and communities. of the future have prevented them from participating in the rewards of the future. Another key thing we have learned is that developing these positive factors requires the involvement of many partners across That is where aggressive and forward thinking social policy, society. These include parents, who are children’s earliest and most such as an early intervention program, would make a difference. influential teachers, volunteer organizations, health service provid- Then we would not have to be engaged in regional economic ers, schools, neighbourhoods and communities. We need strong development debates in 20 years in this House because we would involvement from across society because we all have a stake in May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7095

Private Members’ Business ensuring that Canada’s children get off to the best possible start in To begin with, although we support the motion in principle and life. the underlying reasoning concerning youth crime, we cannot support it for the following reasons. As the Minister of Health recently noted in this House, Cana- dians and their governments have a moral responsibility to help First, family policy is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and this improve conditions of childhood for the seven million children in has always been the case. Second, as far as Quebec is concerned, it this country. He went on to say that taking collective responsibility has well established policies in place to reduce juvenile delinquen- for children is not just the right thing to do, it makes good cy, to help young people reintegrate society and to divert them economic and social sense. from a life of crime. One thing the Reform Party member should understand is that youth crime will decrease when other Canadian How early do we need to focus on childhood development? provinces do as Ontario has done and follow Quebec’s example Research tells us that we have the best opportunity to make a with respect to youth protection, creating youth centres to help positive impact in the very early years of life. This is because 85% young people and tracking those at risk throughout their formative of a child’s core brain development occurs by age three. years. While negative experiences in these early years can result in disorganized and underdeveloped brains, positive experiences I would like to provide some very important, and very revealing, often stimulate overall brain development. What are the social statistics, which were brought to light by my colleague, the implications of negative versus positive early experiences for member for Berthier—Montcalm, a little while ago. children? The figures on juvenile delinquency recidivism rates are elo- D (1130 ) quent and speak for themselves. Quebec has been active in this area for 30 years, through its youth centres and through its youth Research shows that negative experiences tend to produce protection legislation. The result is that it has the lowest rate of impulsive, aggressive adults. On the other hand, positive early life recidivism in Canada. It has the lowest rate of recidivism for youth experiences tend to produce more intelligent, caring and responsi- crime anywhere in North America. The number is 195 per 100,000 ble citizens. in Quebec while, for a province such as Saskatchewan, where the accent has been much more on punitive measures than on rein- Another area where we have made advances is our increased tegration into society, the number is 800 per 10,000. That is high. knowledge of the developmental pathways children pass through on their way to adulthood. These pathways can be influenced by a wide variety of negative or positive factors. Four or five years ago, Ontario decided to follow Quebec’s example and model part of its youth protection program on what is Researchers have found that all children pass through critical being done in Quebec. The results are very impressive. For the past periods along their own developmental pathways. During these five years, the rate of juvenile delinquency in Ontario has steadily periods, there are windows of opportunity where support and decreased. Right now, it is around 400 or 500 per 10,000, as intervention can make a difference in their development. The opposed to 800 per 10,000 for provinces such as Saskatchewan. period from conception to the age of five or six is seen as the most These are the two points I wish to make regarding the motion per critical of these periods. se.

While families are first and foremost responsible for the devel- As for the fact that this motion is being introduced by the opment of their children in this early period, they are not the only Reform Party, that I find somewhat confusing, because we no ones that must assume the responsibility. Families need support. longer know where Reformers are coming from. Governments, communities, corporations, employers, unions, teachers and individual Canadians all have a role to play. We must work together to help children move along healthy pathways to D (1135) adulthood. Do they have a common party policy regarding youth protection With this in mind, I call on fellow members to join me in and the Criminal Code in general? We have heard all sorts of things encouraging Canadians to make healthy child development a in the past five years. We even heard of a delegation of Reform priority in their own neighbourhoods and communities. By acting members planning to visit a country, whose name I forget, to look together we can make a world of difference for Canada’s children. into the benefits of flogging criminals. [Translation] Private members’ bills were tabled and remarks were made by Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speak- members of the Reform Party, which were extremely harsh and er, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the Reform Party made no mention of reintegration or social rehabilitation, only of member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. punishment per se. 7096 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business Now, there is this Reform bill, which is kind of mild compared also create conditions which, in the families that suffer psychologi- to the ones tabled previously. This is somewhat confusing. What cal shock and stress as a result of these cuts, promote delinquency. do members of the Reform Party think? Are they in favour of reintegration? D (1140)

Recently, Reformers criticized the Minister of Justice for lower- ing the age at which children may be tried in adult court for a In 1989, there were a million unemployed. Now, there are 1.4 serious crime. They argued that lowering the age was not enough. million unemployed, but we are paying out $3 billion less in They wanted provisions included in the legislation whereby chil- employment insurance than in 1989. So, there are 400,000 more dren under the age of 10 who are charged with a serious crime may unemployed and $3 billion less. This can only cause increased be tried in adult court. distress and lead to juvenile delinquency.

During this debate, when the Minister of Justice lowered the age For instance, eligibility requirements for parental leave, leave for transferring young offenders charged with serious crimes, not that is often necessary, have doubled. It now takes 700 hours, or 20 once did a Reformer raise the importance of reintegration and the weeks of 35 hours each. This is one of the major areas that was need to help young offenders re-enter society for its greater benefit. tightened up, along with the way seasonal workers and those on the This is a bit confusing. labour market for the first time are treated when they are hit by unemployment. The requirement now to receive employment insurance benefits is 910 hours, whereas before it took 20 weeks at Another concern we have is with the fact that, in their remarks 15 hours per week. on this motion, Reformers failed to mention that there is a major reason why youth crime is on the rise, as crime in general may be, and that is the social and economic conditions people live in. Clearly these cuts, which are pushing families toward welfare, are increasing the distress of these families and the likelihood of the children of these families turning to delinquency. Over the last four or five years, the Liberal government has imposed drastic cuts to social transfers for welfare, health and provincial funding for higher education. Had the Reform Party taken a coherent and intelligent approach, it would have supported the Bloc Quebecois in the matter of provincial transfers for welfare, post-secondary education and Such cuts, which total billions of dollars and which will continue health and it would have supported the Bloc’s demands for reform to be made until the year 2003, have an obvious impact on the of employment insurance, which is needed immediately to avoid economic situation of households, particularly those with children. psychological and economic distress to the people of Quebec and Social problems surface whenever the economic well-being and Canada. development opportunities of families are targeted. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am A child whose basic needs are not met because of financial rising to indicate my support of Motion M-261, presented by the problems experienced by the parents, or because of psychological hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to draw distress also related to reduced federal transfers is more likely to particular attention to his proactive action in proposing a preven- become a juvenile delinquent. tive solution to crime.

Let us look at what this government has done regarding employ- Motion M-261 is composed of three elements. First, that the ment insurance since January 1996. The changes it made had a government should develop, along with their provincial counter- significant impact on the economic conditions of Canadian fami- parts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in lies, thus creating a tendency among children to become juvenile their first eight years of life. Then, that they should ensure that this delinquents. integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, The statistics on employment insurance are shocking and revolt- Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program. ing. They amount to political and administrative barbarism. This Finally, the government should ensure that the program is imple- government has made so many cuts and has tightened the eligibility mented by the year 2000. criteria for employment insurance so much that, for the fiscal year 1997-98, only 42% of the unemployed are eligible for EI benefits, Motion M-261 is a good idea, because it addresses the funda- compared to 83% just nine years ago. In 1989, 83% of the mental causes of crime and prevents criminal behaviour in later unemployed were entitled to benefits, compared to only 42% today. life. This government’s strategy toward crime involves reacting once a crime has been committed. We spend millions of dollars on When you tighten eligibility criteria to that extent and when you the criminal justice system processing offenders through the court triple the number of hours that must be worked, you create and prison systems. This approach to the problem is very costly in conditions that are conducive to a rise in juvenile delinquency. You both financial and personal terms. Anyone who has been the victim May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7097

Private Members’ Business of a crime can say that the effects linger long after the actual because we know that the problem of crime among aboriginals is incident. incredible. By inviting them to join us in our efforts, I think we will be able to accomplish something.

If we are really concerned about victims’ rights, we should work For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support Motion at decreasing the number of crimes and this will decrease the M-261. All our children deserve a head start. number of victims. [English] The purpose of this motion is to address the fundamental needs of Canadian children at a very early age. The NDP has long The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have three minutes recognized the importance of meeting our children’s basic needs so left in the debate. that they may develop to their full potential with the right nutrition and the right environment. In 1989, the then NDP leader Ed Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, since the debate is to be Broadbent introduced a motion aimed at eliminating child poverty terminated in three minutes and since Government Orders do not by the year 2000. This motion was adopted by all parties, but now start until noon, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that we in 1998 the situation has not improved, in fact it is even more continue until noon to debate this motion. critical. We must invest in our children in order to ensure a better future, with less crime. I also ask that the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London be allowed five minutes, that the member for Lethbridge be allowed five minutes, and that I would have a minute to thank everyone. D (1145) The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is that agreed? The program this motion is suggesting is not a new one. Head start programs were introduced in Michigan, Hawaii and Moncton, New Brunswick. Hawaii’s healthy start program was one of the Some hon. members: Agreed. first early intervention programs for children. It focussed on high risk families and on interventions during pregnancy. By tackling Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr. problems such as basic parenting skills, nutrition, conflict resolu- Speaker, I commend the hon. member for putting forward the tion and substance abuse, it was able to reduce child abuse by 99%. motion we are debating today. I remind members of the House that the motion states: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should (a) develop, along with The PERRY Pre-School Program in Michigan has focused on their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for improving parenting skills, improving infant health, bettering children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves family circumstances and promoting cognitive and social develop- both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head ment. Assessments of this program have shown that it has reduced Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000. the adult and juvenile crime rate by almost 50%, decreased the number of teen pregnancies by 40%, and increased rates of I could speak for some time on the substantive merits of the employment and income. Long-term savings to taxpayers were proposal. I support the intent of the motion quite strongly. It has substantial and, in all, amounted to six times the initial investment. been stated eloquently by members who spoke before me that by investing in children in the early years of life we get a tremendous The Head Start Program in Moncton, New Brunswick, provides compounding effect of benefits throughout a person’s life. If we children of parents who are socially, emotionally or educationally invest early we get better literacy rates. If we invest early we get disadvantaged with an environment that focuses on children’s and lower criminal rates. If we invest early we get better health rates. parents’ basic needs. For each dollar spent under the Head Start All social factors are improved by investing early between the ages program, it is estimated that six are saved in social assistance of zero and eight. I certainly hope the member knows that I know services. In addition to saving money, we are preventing the that and that I know the intent. considerable emotional difficulties suffered by crime victims. D (1150) We should set aside political discourse that talks about crime as though it is inevitable. A proactive approach that invests in our However, if we had questions and answers I would raise some children not only ensures a future with less crime but it also ensures concerns over the bill. For the federal government to partner with a promising future for our young people. I can think of no better the provinces these days is a difficult task. Anyone who reads the investment. newspapers knows that it is difficult. Unfortunately in many parts of the country the provinces want Motion M-26l should go further. Federal and provincial govern- the federal government to write a cheque. Then we would let ments should urge first nations chiefs to take part in the program, provinces go off on their merry way and devise programs. They 7098 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business would thank Ottawa and take the money, but they do not want the House have respect for him as well. He has dedicated his life to federal government involved in their jurisdiction. helping the injured and the sick. He has had a firsthand opportunity to witness breakdowns in our health care and education systems as the two are so closely linked. Quebec would have some opinions on federal government spending on what traditionally would be seen as a provincial jurisdiction. That causes me some concern. Other provinces wheth- I am confident all members of the House will support the motion er out west or whatever would also have some concerns about the because almost all of us are parents and many of us are grandpar- federal government embarking on a new spending program. I am ents or soon to be. We know that in an ever increasing competitive not sure we can put a time line of the year 2000. These things global market technological advances make leaps and bounds but would involve some very difficult negotiations. They would have should never come at the expense of our children. The generations to be processed and I do not know whether that can be done by the to come will require every head start they can get, every advantage year 2000. their health and happiness will allow, giving them the support and positive reinforcement required to excel in a competitive world.

I do not think the member is suggesting that the federal government, if it does not have an agreement to bring in a program As my colleague recently wrote in a note: by the year 2000, would unilaterally embark on its own program. I —research has clearly demonstrated that events in early childhood can have a do not read that in the bill so I am not sure what would happen if the dramatic effect on an individual. Ensuring that children’s basic needs are met (i.e. motion passed and the federal government could not get agreement proper nutrition, strengthening parent child relationships, good parenting skills, by the year 2000. preventing child abuse, etc.) has proven to have a profound effect in producing stable, happy children and thereafter, well functioning adults. Programs that address these needs are not only effective in their outcome, but also, extremely That is not to suggest I do not support the bill. I have some cost effective. difficulty with the wording. I ask members when they vote on the motion not just to vote on the intent of the bill. All members can I doubt any member of the House would refute that youth crime see the intent is worth while. It is worth supporting. is becoming increasingly common and increasingly violent. While legislative changes can bring about statistical changes in youth crime, my colleague urges us to consider the motion, to support it, However it is not simple and straightforward to embark on new and to get to the root of youth problems before they start. federal-provincial programs. The federal government is trying to get a new federal-provincial program on home care. It has on its agenda that at some point it would like a new federal-provincial D (1155 ) program around a national pharmacare program. This would become another program that would be added to the agenda. The operative word here is prevention. The time has come for the House to start taking a proactive stance on youth problems and We saw it on the hepatitis C issue. The government is trying to to stop relying solely on reactionary solutions. work out another agreement with the provinces on how to treat the people excluded from the original agreement. Those negotiations are proving to be difficult. I could throw some stones at those on The problem of youth crime may not be the only problem in the other side who are in some respect playing politics. society but it is one issue we can try to resolve before it material- izes. If we can implement a national head start program, children who may have began an early life in crime can be helped in the My main point is that federal-provincial agreements are not as right direction through such a program. simple as a simple private member’s motion might suggest on first read. I ask members to think about what they are voting on when the motion comes before us for a vote. I advise members opposite The cost of implementing a national head start program will be that I support the intent of the bill, but I will have to reflect on returned many times over, as has been previously mentioned, with whether I will be voting for it. every child that is helped. Youth criminals can easily become serious adult offenders and we all know how expensive our judicial and penal systems have become. Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank members present for allowing us to carry on. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 261 advising the government to develop a If we invest the money now we could save the costs associated national head start program. with youth criminals and their subsequent adult crime life. Chil- dren do not begin lives in crime out of choice. My colleague has done a great deal of research on the issue and I urge all members My colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is someone for here today to seriously listen to the facts and act in the best interest whom I have a great deal of respect. I know many members in the of Canadian children. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7099

Private Members’ Business The motion before us today will help children, plain and simple. The reason there is concern is that the House has previously Regardless of our political affiliation let us put our partisan given unanimous consent for three persons to speak. That is why it politics aside and act in the best interest of our youth. has to be done in this way.

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the member to rise It is imperative we remember to whom we owe these seats in on debate to present an amendment to the motion? parliament: our constituents, the men, women and children who rely on us to represent their best interest. Today we can prove to all Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, if I may just briefly explain my our constituents that we recognize a good thing when we see it. amendment, it may become clearer. The amendment would be to Today’s motion will only improve the conditions of our children by insert after ‘‘their provincial counterparts’’ ‘‘and the leaders of the addressing basic parenting skills, proper nutrition, conflict resolu- aboriginal communities’’. In consultation with the federal and tion and abuse issues. provincial governments it would include aboriginal communities.

The statistics are in and early intervention programs can be very The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore have unanimous consent of the successful. Members of the House cannot ignore the 50% decrease House to be recognized on debate by the Chair? in juvenile and adult crime as a result of early intervention programs. Nor can my colleagues ignore the 40% reduction in teen pregnancies and the resulting higher rates of employment and Some hon. members: Agreed. income. The long term savings to Canadians are enormous. Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Sackville— Eastern Shore and along with my colleague, the member for I do not need to do the math to remind my colleagues about the Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to move that the motion be huge price tag associated with crime. Costs go up and insurance amended by adding after the words ‘‘develop, along with their premiums rise. Policing expenses, court costs, in addition to provincial counterparts,’’ and before the words ‘‘a comprehensive incarceration and counselling are all extremely expensive. National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life’’: —and leaders of aboriginal communities— To simplify the decision of whether or not to support the motion—and my common sense tells me that all in the House will D support a decent and worthwhile initiative such as this one—I liken (1200 ) the situation to a favourite poem of mine ‘‘The Road Not Taken’’ by Robert Frost. The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore would get the amendment to the table officers we will check it to make sure that it is appropriate. If it is, In our great country we have and will often come to a crossroads, then we will bring it to the House. two diverging roads that branch off in two different directions. I see today’s motion on the implementation of a national head start Although Private Members’ Business has now expired, the program as exactly that. It is a fork in the road. Either we take the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been given the assurance road that has been travelled many times, the reactionary road of of the House that he will have one minute to wrap up the debate. detention and incarceration, or we take a new path, a proactive path of crime prevention through social development. Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House today who spoke in favour of Motion No. 261. Every child in Canada deserves the opportunity to develop as a normal human being. I urge all members here today to support my This motion will very clearly demonstrate the leadership of this colleague’s motion. House in preventing some of the child abuse, violence and youth crime which we see in our society today. It will strengthen co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. It Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. will strengthen parental involvement. It will provide a brighter future for children. I would like to stand in debate to move a friendly amendment to the motion before us. Could I have unanimous consent of the House So far, five provinces and territories have come on side to say to rise in debate to move an amendment to the motion? they want to work with the federal government to make a national head start program a reality.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Again I want to thank all the members who spoke in favour of Sackville—Eastern Shore has requested unanimous consent to be this motion today. They are speaking in favour not only of this recognized on debate to move an amendment to the motion. motion, but also of the future of the children of our nation. 7100 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair has been D (1250) advised that the amendment is in order. Therefore, the amendment is before the House, but debate has concluded, so the vote is deferred. (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) It being 12.03 p.m. the time provided for Private Members’ Business has expired. (Division No. 158) Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred at the expiry of the time provided for YEAS Government Orders today. Members ______Adams Alcock Anderson Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Baker Bakopanos GOVERNMENT ORDERS Barnes Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare Bertrand [English] Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Brown Bryden BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998 Bulte Byrne Caccia Calder BILL C-36—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION Cannis Caplan Catterall Cauchon Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Clouthier Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House Cohen Copps of Commons, Lib.) moved: Cullen DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion That in relation to Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget Discepola Dromisky tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, not more than one further sitting day Drouin Duhamel shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day Easter Eggleton shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, and fifteen minutes Finlay Folco before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to Fontana Fry Gagliano Godfrey the consideration of report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of Goodale Gray (Windsor West) the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for Grose Guarnieri the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the Harb Harvard stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively Ianno Jackson without further debate or amendment. Jennings Jordan Karetak-Lindell Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson D (1205 ) Kraft Sloan Lastewka Lavigne Lee Leung Lincoln The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the Longfield MacAulay House to adopt the motion? Mahoney Malhi Maloney Manley Marchi Marleau Some hon. members: Agreed. Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé McCormick McLellan (Edmonton West) Some hon. members: No. McWhinney Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna Mitchell The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of Murray Myers the motion will please say yea. Nault Normand O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Some hon. members: Yea. Patry Peric Pettigrew Phinney Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will Pratt Provenzano please say nay. Redman Reed Richardson Robillard Rock Saada Some hon. members: Nay. Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré Shepherd The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) have it. St-Julien Szabo Telegdi Thibeault And more than five members having risen: Torsney Ur Valeri Vanclief Wappel Whelan The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members. Wilfert—131 May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7101

Government Orders NAYS Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Members [English]

Ablonczy Anders The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) motion? Bailey Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Some hon. members: Agreed. Bigras Borotsik Brien Brison Some hon. members: No. Cadman Casson Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête [Translation] de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers Dockrill Dubé (Lévis) REPORT STAGE Duceppe Dumas Duncan Earle Epp Forseth The House resumed from May 13, 1998 consideration of Bill Fournier Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Parliament on February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment) Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) from the committee; and of Group No. 1. Guay Hardy Hart Harvey Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Herron Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Speaker, Bill C-36 before us contains various provisions, including Jaffer Jones one regarding the millennium scholarships program, which the Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Konrad Laliberte Lalonde Prime Minister would like to impose on and force down the throats Laurin Lefebvre of the provinces, particularly Quebec, whose loans and grants Loubier Lunn MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini system is working remarkably well. Marceau Marchand Mark Mayfield Incidentally, last Wednesday, in the City of Lac-Mégantic, I McDonough Ménard Mercier Morrison attended the opening of a new foundation, which does not make Muise Nunziata any waves or cause any jurisdictional problems. The founding Nystrom Obhrai Picard (Drummond) Plamondon president of the Montignac Foundation, Serge Poulin, who is the Ramsay Riis vice-principal of the Montignac school, together with the board, Rocheleau Sauvageau Schmidt Solberg will carry out his duties on a voluntary basis and will be required to St-Hilaire Stinson raise up to $1 million within five years in support of Montignac’s Stoffer Strahl Thompson (Charlotte) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) high school graduates. Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Venne White (Langley—Abbotsford) —89 Unlike the federal government, this foundation does not plan to

spend 5% of its budget on administration costs. Everyone involved unanimously agreed to work for free, not only in managing and PAIRED MEMBERS administering the fund but also in raising funds, while it is a well known fact that the federal government has already earmarked $2.5 billion in the 1997-98 budget for scholarships that will not be granted to students for another two or three years. Alarie Asselin Bennett Collenette D (1255) Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gallaway Guimond Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) It is a real scandal, and, in addition, it is causing barefaced Perron Proud duplication. The last time I spoke on this bill, I compared the duplication to the situation of a farmer with a mixed quota of The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. processing milk and fluid milk. That means two ministers of agriculture will be managing the same cow, which belongs to the same producer. [Translation] There will be two levels of government, two heads of govern- ment, two forms for every student to complete to obtain money to Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. continue studying. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate and vote on the following motion: Of course students do not care whether the cheque bears a maple leaf or a fleur de lys. We all know that the Government of Quebec That this House congratulate the board of the new Ottawa Hospital on its decision will deduct from bursaries to students any amount it discovers the to confirm David Levine in his position as chief executive officer and reiterate— federal government has given them. I would like to congratulate Serge Poulin, the founding presi- Some hon. members: Oh, oh. dent, and the members of his board of directors along with the 7102 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders members of the 15 municipalities surrounding the city of Lac-Mé- D (1300 ) gantic, who will manage the Fondation Montignac. The region of Lac-Mégantic is very prosperous, with a level of unemployment no Students are struggling. Now the government is on its moral high doubt under 6%. However, the average income is lower than that in horse again to announce a slush fund. It does not want to do it too the eastern townships. With this sort of foundation, we will enable early in its term. It is going to wait and the fund will benefit at best dozens and dozens of students to continue their studies. 6% of students if it ever gets to them. That is a disgrace.

In closing, I invite the federal government and the Minister of I will talk about the budget. The minister was quite upset at Human Resources Development, in particular, to sit down with being criticized by the auditor general for his accounting practices Pauline Marois and come to an agreement. It is disastrous when the so he sent his cronies to talk to the auditor general. The message government is continually sowing the seeds of discord and always was basically that if you do not like the way we are keeping our looking for an argument or a run in with the provinces, given that books, we will just change the rules. Who do you think you are to education is a provincial matter. criticize the government, you are only the auditor general.

[English] I have to commend the auditor general on his reply. On March 18 the auditor general stated this to the government: ‘‘I believe the Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it change will open the door for governments to influence reported gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementa- results by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then tion bill, and to represent my constituents. deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end of the year once preliminary numbers are known’’. The auditor general is trying to very politely tell the government to quit cooking the I suppose what is most frustrating, though, would be for them to books. That is exactly what the government is doing. I cannot witness this last vote. The government should be ashamed of itself. believe the Liberals sit on that side of the House with their faces It has just forced closure again, again and again. There are 107 buried in their papers. They are not paying attention. amendments to this bill. There has been less than one day to debate these at report stage and what does this government do? It does like it has in the past from the very first bill, right back to Bill C-2. It Look at the facts. Look what those guys did less than a half hour forces closure. ago. They stood up like trained sheep and followed their marching orders. How can they do that? We watched it on hepatitis C and we watch it on vote after vote. Why do they even come to Ottawa? The government pulls every single trick and all the people on They are ordered here. They think they have some dignity coming that side of the House get their little marching orders, they stand up to this House and voting like that. I have been here for one year. like trained sheep and do what they are told to do. It is absolutely Time after time I see closure. disgusting and appalling. They can crack jokes but this is serious business. The people of I want to talk about Group No. 1. I have not quite figured out Canada are incredibly frustrated that the Liberals sit on that side of whether this is the Prime Minister’s slush fund or if it is the finance the House and force closure on bills like this, that they make a slush minister’s. The Prime Minister has announced a $2.5 billion slush fund for the finance minister to dispose of when he feels it is right fund which nobody will see until at least the year 2000. We have no for his political advantage while students are out there struggling. idea what direction it is going. He is sort of burying it in a dark They are struggling all over British Columbia where I come from. hole. We are not sure if it is being put away for the finance minister’s announcement when he wants to seek the nomination of Canadian students are facing rising tuition costs and expenses this party to sit on this side of the House. We do not know where it and the government’s response to them is we will create a slush is going. fund but come back and see us in the year 2000 and we will decide if you qualify. If you buy a young Liberals membership we will see Imagine if it does go to some of the students. Only 6% of the where you fit in the mix and if you will get some of this fund. We entire student population would receive any benefit of this $2.5 have not quite decided who will benefit from it. billion slush fund belonging to we are not sure who. That is absolutely shameful. Students are looking for help. They I find that very disturbing but even more disturbing is that this are facing rising tuition costs on account of this government’s government stands up on that side of the House, gets on its moral massive cutbacks to post-secondary institutions, $7 billion since high horse and all of a sudden it is so proud of doing something for the Liberals formed government. young Canadians, putting something back into education. This government has a very short memory. Over the last four years That is straight fact. Look at the numbers. Any financial expert during the last parliament this government cut $7 billion in transfer can tell them that. They sit over there and think it is a big joke. The payments to the provinces. What do those go to? Education. day of reckoning will come, next election day. How they can May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7103

Government Orders actually stand up and vote to force closure on 107 amendments is Let me first discuss the federal government’s unconditional incredible. We have had one day of debate. withdrawal from education. Many reasons justify such a measure, but it is always worth repeating them. There was a time when those members sat on this side of the House. They thought it was appalling to force closure. But how First, under the Constitution, education is an exclusive provin- quickly it changes when they are on that side of the House. Time cial jurisdiction. We can never say it too often. The federal and time again we have seen what these members have done. They government argued that its initiative is not related to education, but get their marching orders from the whip. I think they call it a triple to the funding of education. Yet, it is clear that the federal program whip vote. That is what we are getting again. interferes in the education sector by evaluating scholarship recipi- ents and asking them for an activity report.

D (1305 ) Second, the issue is even more sensitive in the case of Quebec which, as you know, is not a province like the others, even though some refuse to recognize that fact. Again, anything relating to How can those guys sit on that side of the House with straight language, culture and education is vital to Quebec’s national faces and joke and laugh about something this serious? We are identity. talking about the budget implementation act and I am specifically talking about the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund which is a nice fancy title for the Prime Minister and his cronies. Finally, the federal government’s project is a waste of time, money and resources. Indeed, the Quebec government has been administering its own loans and scholarships program for 34 years. If this government had anything to do it would put that $2.5 It has the expertise and the necessary infrastructures to ensure the billion into tax cuts immediately where there would be a tangible smooth operation of a new scholarships program. Why create a benefit, where jobs could be created for students who will be new structure, the millennium scholarship foundation, and provide getting out of university in the next week or two looking for jobs. it with the required staff and mechanisms, when everything is Students are facing dismal prospects right now across the country already in place in Quebec? due to the government’s high taxation on small business. This government could have done something positive for the students of Such shameful duplication is condemned so strongly that a this country. Instead it chose to play its political games, cooking consensus quickly developed in Quebec to have all student scholar- the books, hiding the money and deciding what fits its political ships administered by the Quebec government. agenda and how it can benefit from this. That is exactly what the government has done. This leads me to discuss the second Quebec claim, that is the transfer to the Quebec government of the financial resources I honestly believe that students and all Canadians in the next reserved for Quebec, so that it can implement an additional election will come back to this. We will make sure they remember scholarship program if needed. that time after time this government forced closure when it was convenient, when it suited its own political agenda. There is no The main reason for this is the current imbalance between the substance in this. It is just hiding $2.5 billion. The government federal government’s financial resources and those of the prov- calls it a scholarship fund but it is not accessible until the year inces. 2000. Even then it may benefit 6% of the students of this country. D (1310) How can government members sit on that side of the House and be proud of themselves? In February 1957, ten years before he became Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote the following: ‘‘The total [Translation] wealth at the disposal of the Canadian tax system needs to be divided between the federal government and the provincial govern- ments so that each may do as it sees fit with its share’’. Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a In other words, each level of government must have its share of resolution asking the federal government to amend its bill on the taxes so that it may meet its constitutional responsibilities. The millennium scholarship fund, so as to respect Quebec’s unique present Prime Minister would do well to read what his mentor had student loans and grants program. to say on this.

Over the next few minutes, I will explain why the representatives The federal government does, however, have greater powers of of the people of Quebec asked Ottawa to unconditionally withdraw taxation than the provinces. This problem dates back to the from this area and to provide full financial compensation to the beginnings of Confederation, worsening as the provinces began to Quebec government. develop programs to meet the growing needs of their populations in 7104 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders the areas of health, education and welfare. Instead of splitting tax for Quebec. It is so convenient to attack the separatists when things resources differently with the provinces, however, the government are not going well in the Canadian system. of Canada offered to co-finance programs under certain conditions. D (1315) Worse yet, the federal government did not settle for controlling the provinces’ exercise of power. Often, solely in order to raise its But if there is a sovereignist movement in Quebec, is it not profile, it wants to be the one to control a program in an area of primarily because the Canadian federation is not working? If it is provincial jurisdiction. As we know, very often it does this by not working, is it not mainly because the federal government is taking advantage of its spending power. infringing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, which is leading to costly overlap? What is the millennium scholarship foundation but just one more abuse of the federal spending power, despite this government’s To answer these questions, let me remind the House of what the promise to limit spending in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum? late political analyst Léon Dion wrote in 1980: ‘‘The political stability of our country relies on Quebec being granted control over all linguistic and cultural matters as well as the financial means to The present Prime Minister of Canada is launching unprecedent- develop and implement the programs it would see fit to promote in ed assaults on the provinces. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau supported these areas as suitable for its own people.’’ the Quebec premier in his opposition to the federal grants to universities in the 1950s. On this he wrote the following: ‘‘If a Canada is a dysfunctional entity. For the last 50 years, Canadian government has such a superabundance of revenue that it under- federalism has moved away from the model developed by its takes to provide part of the common wealth which does not fall founders, since respect for the autonomy of the provinces is at the under its jurisdiction—that government is conspicuously guilty of heart of the 1867 pact. going against the principle of proportional taxation’’. The Millennium Scholarship Foundation is but another example Judging by these words from a Quebecker who cannot be of this distorted federalism. Since negotiations are underway to labelled a separatist, the Government of Canada collects too much allow the Government of Quebec to regain exclusive control over taxes compared to the provincial governments. This is no doubt the scholarships, it would be appropriate to suspend the implementa- reason the Minister of Finance is trying to camouflage his budget tion of the millennium scholarship program. surplus. Every year he has underevaluated his taxation revenues, overestimated his reserve for contingencies, and as a result exag- However, the federal government seems to be too concerned gerated the size of the federal deficit. Today, he is trying to include about its political visibility and not enough about the welfare of the in the 1998-99 budget expenditures that would be made over a students to support the amendments put forward by the Bloc period of ten years. What will he invent tomorrow to interfere, once Quebecois. again, in areas under provincial jurisdiction? [English] The federal government now has more money than it needs to fulfil its responsibilities. That money is not the federal govern- Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. ment’s money. First of all, it is the money the provinces should Speaker, I have some quick facts on the so-called Liberal millen- have received through transfers, which were cut by several billion nium fund. dollars. It is also the money of the workers, whose EI contributions were diverted. Finally, it is the money of taxpayers from Quebec, According to human resources development, in Canada 45% of Alberta, New Brunswick and all the other Canadian provinces all new jobs by the year 2000 will require post-secondary educa- where the federal government collects taxes. tion. This means that for many young people attending university or college is not an option if they want to find work. Despite this fact and despite the fact that the Liberals say they are committed to If there is a need for scholarships, the provinces must meet that youth, the Liberals continue to throw barriers in the way of young need themselves. The federal government just has to give them part people struggling to develop the skills and talents necessary to get of the fiscal base so they can collect the necessary taxes directly or, ahead in a cutthroat global economy. as a former premier of Quebec used to say, ‘‘to give them back their loot’’. But, as we can see, the more things change, the more they Since 1995 the federal Liberals have cut $1.5 billion from stay the same. federal funding for post-secondary education. Since 1980 Liberal and Conservative governments have cut federal funding from $6.44 In other words, the federal government should withdraw from for each dollar of student fees to less than $3. the area of scholarships with full compensation to the provinces, as demanded unanimously by the members of the National Assembly Over the last 10 years tuition fees have climbed by 240%. Last of Quebec. As a matter of fact, that is the intent of the amendments year alone they rose by almost 12% nationally, increasing at a rate to the bill that were brought forward by my colleague, the member seven times the rate of inflation. Tuition fees in Canada have May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7105

Government Orders reached a national average of $3,100 which surpasses the average It is because of the retreat of public funding that tuition fees have tuition rate of publicly funded universities in the United States. skyrocketed. We have seen huge increases over the last 10 years. There is a direct relationship between the pain and debt load students are facing in the retreat of public funding as a result of a In a 1997 survey of high school students in the maritimes, 40% loss of transfers from the federal government to the provincial of students not going to university said they could not go because governments. There is absolutely no escaping the fact that the they could not afford it. The average student debt load is $25,000. millennium fund cannot make up and does not make up for the loss That is up $13,000 in 1993 when the Liberals took power. we have experienced. Bankruptcies for students trying to pay off loans are at record levels, having increased by 700% since 1989. Currently 130,000 students are in default. The number of bankrupt graduates is In addition the other really serious situation that the millennium estimated at 37,000. Missing one payment determines default. fund creates is that it begins to take us down the slippery slope of privatization. New Democrats are very concerned that with this foundation, a private foundation being set up which will have Now some questions for them. By the time the first cheque from representation from corporations in the private sector, there will be the millennium fund is mailed out the Liberal cuts to the Canada less and less control of public administration and public direction health and social transfer will have cost colleges and universities of our post-secondary educational facilities. For that reason alone $3 billion. It does nothing to redress rapid increases in tuition fees this fund should be rejected. for post-secondary education which have almost tripled since 1990. It would not substantially alter the huge debt load the university students face upon graduation. Nor does the scholarship better the We should go back to the drawing board and say that the real situation for students graduating into unemployment. Less than 1% issue here is to support publicly administered, publicly accessible of unemployed youth will benefit from the government’s program post-secondary educational facilities. We have already seen exam- to fight youth unemployment. ples in Canada where the corporate influence on a board of governors of universities and colleges and now on this millennium fund is beginning to have an impact on the curriculum, deregula- To add hypocrisy to the mix, very deep within the budget’s small tion of tuition fees and deregulation of programs. All these things print is a provision that stops students from filing for bankruptcy are creating an environment where there is increasing privatization for at least 10 years after they have graduated. The current policy is and corporatization of our post-secondary educational system. two years. The NDP believes that we have to have leadership from the We have heard a lot of discussion about the millennium fund and federal government. It needs to be the kind of leadership done in whether it will improve the situation for post-secondary education. co-operation and collaboration with provincial jurisdictions to Having looked at the document in committee where some of the design a national program of national grants that deals with discussion has taken place, it is quite clear that post-secondary different jurisdictions and different provincial contexts where there education is in a very deep crisis. One of the reasons that we are is a clear understanding and a principle that accessibility for all facing a crisis with post-secondary education is the retreat of public students in Canada is a national standard. funding for our post-secondary educational facilities. The NDP believes that this is a starting point of ensuring that our Although we have heard a lot of talk about the millennium fund, post-secondary educational system is protected and strengthened this grand fund of $2.5 billion, the reality is that this fund will not and not destroyed as we have seen over the last few years. even begin until the year 2000 and will only help 7% of the students. Canada is only one of two OECD countries that do not have a national grants system. We need to ensure federal funding is D provided in co-operation with provincial governments to establish (1320 ) a national system of grants.

The auditor general has some questions about the accounting In the province of British Columbia as well as in the province of practices of the millennium fund. Those questions should be raised Quebec leadership has been shown in terms of trying to keep with the Minister of Finance as well. education accessible for students even in the face of massive cutbacks. British Columbia is now in the third year of a tuition By the time the fund begins in the year 2000 we will have freeze. This has been very difficult to accomplish, given the experienced cuts of around $3 billion. It becomes very clear that massive cutbacks it has experienced in transfers from the federal the millennium fund does not even come close to replacing or government. compensating for the massive draining cuts we have experienced in post-secondary education. This is causing enormous concerns not The NDP is calling on the federal government to show the only in terms of where public policy is going, but also for the necessary leadership. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and concern impact it is having on the lives of individual students. expressed by government members about the levels of student 7106 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders debt. There is nothing in this bill that will alleviate the pressure and In addition to funding post-secondary education through Cana- the huge debt load now facing students. da’s health and social transfer we have provided some $4.2 billion in financial assistance since 1964 to students in provinces that participate in the Canada student loans program. Since that same We need to go back to the drawing board and state clearly that year we have provided $1.4 billion to the two jurisdictions that do this millennium fund is taking us down the wrong road. We need a not participate in the program, namely Quebec and the Northwest national grants system. We need accessibility. Most important of Territories. all, we need restoration of the federal funding for post-secondary education in Canada. We have a long tradition of awarding scholarships to students through various granting councils and programs such as the Natural Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Medi- with great pride that I contribute to the debate on the merits of Bill cal Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and C-36. The question in my mind is, on such a basic issue as Humanities Research Council of Canada. If this legislation is education, a mom and apple pie type issue, what does Reform have adopted we will add an additional $400 million for the next three against students? It boggles me. years to the combined budgets of these three councils. This is pretty impressive. I consider it a privilege to serve as a member of this government and as we for the first time in a generation deliver a balanced While similar in spirit, the Canada millennium scholarship fund budget speak about an education initiative this government has is quite unique. This contribution is Canada’s way of celebrating brought forward. What makes me most proud about this accom- the passage into the new millennium. We are observing this plishment is the fact that it has enabled us to introduce perhaps the extraordinary event not by building monuments but by investing in most progressive program every witnessed in this country, the Canadians and preparing them to be the knowledge workers in a Canada millennium scholarship program, the cornerstone of the knowledge economy. Canadian opportunities strategy.

An equally important reason why the millennium scholarship This government knows there is no better investment in the cannot be considered the same as other federal funding for future than future investments in access to post-secondary educa- post-secondary education is that the endowment fund will be tion, knowledge and innovation. That is why we are creating the managed by an independent organization. single largest endowment ever offered by a federal government to ensure that a post-secondary education is within reach of anyone who wants it. We are especially targeting those of modest means The Canada millennium scholarship foundation in consultation for whom post-secondary education would be beyond their grasp. with key stakeholders will decide how to design and deliver millennium scholarship funds. The fund will be administered by a board of directors made up of private citizens, at least one of whom D (1325 ) will be a student.

This $2.5 billion initiative will change the lives and the future of The minister of education as well as the education community Canadians. It will give Canadians access to the knowledge and will play a key role in identifying prospective directors and skills necessary for jobs of the 21st century. It will give up to one nominating people who have a pulse on the education community. million Canadians a chance to thrive in a new economy and in a Once operational, the foundation will be able to enter into agree- new millennium. ments with provincial governments and post-secondary institutions on some aspects of scholarship eligibility. In addition the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation will be expected to minimize There can be no debate. As we stand here on the threshold of the administrative costs and overhead. 21st century we must prepare our citizens to think innovatively and creatively in a world that is transformed into information and technology. For this very reason increasing access to post-secon- Our overriding goal is to significantly increase access to post- dary education must be a national priority. secondary studies everywhere in Canada for low and middle income students and to do so in a way that avoids duplication with any province. Yet there are some in this country who suggest it is not the Government of Canada’s business to ensure higher learning and make sure it is accessible and affordable; this despite the fact it is The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the now universally recognized that post-secondary education is a millennium scholarship complements other types of student assis- precondition for full participation in a future economy. These tance programs. Given this flexibility the Government of Quebec’s critics overlook the federal government’s well established history decision to break off discussions regarding the millennium fund is in helping Canadians to pursue advanced studies. both puzzling and very frustrating. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7107

Government Orders This government is deeply dismayed that Quebec has not put The Canada millennium scholarships are critical new tools to the interests of young Quebeckers first. Dismayed but not totally help us prepare Canadians for the challenges and opportunities of surprised. From the outset the PQ government took a hard line the 21st century. As much as they will help equip 100,000 students putting forward a lopsided proposal that left no room for reconcili- each year with the knowledge necessary to function in an informa- ation. Despite our repeated efforts to find common ground, our tion society, they will also inspire other youth who may be thinking provincial counterparts remained intransigent. about dropping out or hesitating about going to college or universi- ty.

The position of Mr. Bouchard’s government has not changed. Perhaps most significant, these scholarships will heighten public Mr. Bouchard wants to opt out with full compensation. His awareness and appreciation that a post-secondary education is government has shown no flexibility whatsoever. It is clear that Mr. essential in a knowledge based economy. They will help mobilize Bouchard had no intention of negotiating so there is no point in the entire population behind a clear and strong inspiring vision, a returning to the negotiation table. collective future in which we all have the knowledge and skills we need. Even though Premier Bouchard told the Prime Minister last The Government of Canada is determined to lead our society March that he recognized the Government of Canada’s intention to toward a future in which all Canadians are empowered to succeed ‘‘make a significant concrete and modern contribution to the in the new economy. That is why it is so critical that we quickly knowledge through scholarships and’’ acknowledge that this was pass Bill C-36. If Canada is to grow and prosper in the 21st century ‘‘a legitimate concern’’, the Quebec government wants to opt out of we must begin by implementing the federal budget today. this program with full compensation. This would seriously weaken and undermine the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation I ask members opposite to read the bill, not the prepared texts and the intent for which it is put in place. which their staff have put together for them.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, sound economic policy involves D (1330 ) dealing with the challenges facing Canadians in a holistic way, with consistent economic policies, not stopgap measures that further As disappointing as these developments are, we must move complicate, for instance, the Canadian tax code. forward without interfering with Quebec’s priorities in the areas of education and without penalizing, most importantly, Quebec stu- The millennium scholarship fund will only benefit— dents. The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is with regret that the Chair advises the hon. member for Kings—Hants that he has Members on this side of the House are confident that a solution already spoken in this debate. He cannot speak again, although that to outstanding issues relating to implementing a foundation can be is going to leave a lot of people in the House terribly disappointed. found in the context of the current legislation. As the Prime Minister has already said in the House ‘‘We are satisfied that the We will double-check the blues and if it is determined that the bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the situation in a hon. member has not spoken on this group of motions, then he will reasonable manner’’. Reasonable words from a reasonable man. be the first recognized if we make that determination.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace The fact that the finance committee decided to extend its River. consideration for Bill C-36 to hear further witnesses is a further reflection of that flexibility, but there are practical limitations D (1335 ) which must be factored into the equation. If we want this program in place by the year 2000 we must adopt the legislation as quickly Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speak- as possible. er, I had fully expected to have my speech interrupted by question period. That seems to be my lot in life, to rise just before the start I hear my colleagues across the floor commenting ‘‘Not until the of QP. However, with this sudden unexpected turn of events that is year 2000’’. They speak is if we are in the 1950s or the 1930s. The not going to happen today and I will speak earlier than I had year 2000 is merely 18 months away. originally intended. There are a couple of fundamental issues which I wish to address It is equally important that we not lose sight of the principal in speaking to Bill C-36, and specifically the amendments put reason for introducing the millennium scholarships. Canada’s forward in Group No. 1 by the Bloc Quebecois. success and competitiveness in the next century will depend on Canadians being well equipped and well motivated to meet Cana- First of all, the very fundamental issue that we are dealing with da’s challenges in a knowledge based economy. in this very shortened debate that we are going to have today is the 7108 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders issue of time allocation. The Liberals, once again, have cut off Canadians. It wants to set up two classes, just as it has on the debate for the 41st time since 1994. It is despicable. I think there is hepatitis C issue. It wants to have two classes of victims. It will rising resentment across the country due to the fact that there is no compensate some of the people. The government says it is a caring democracy in this Chamber, the very place that is supposed to be government, that it will compensate the post-1986 victims. The the heart of democracy. ones between 1986 and 1990 will be compensated, but the ones before will not be compensated. Perhaps the government has done this because it has decided that it wants a longer summer break. Perhaps the backbenchers put D (1340 ) pressure on cabinet and on the Prime Minister to ensure they get a long enough time to flip burgers and go to barbecues in their ridings. While that is important work for an MP, no doubt, the fact The hon. member across the way who just spoke was bragging is that the main thrust should be to debate legislation in this about how the millennium fund will help 100,000 students. Is that Chamber. not great? But the fact of the matter is that there 1.6 million post-secondary students: 400,000 are full time students and the rest are part time students. Do the math. The students are doing the We have seen this so many times in the past. When the math: 100,000 out of 400,000. opposition parties start to really get to this government and start to hold it accountable on important national issues like its complete failure to address the reform of the Young Offenders Act or the Once again this Liberal government wants to differentiate. issue of compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, what does this Which will be the lucky quarter of the full time students who will government do? It runs for cover by invoking time allocation, by get the scholarships? The government will decide which of those bringing down closure to cut off debate. In this case what we see is young students will get the scholarships. If they belong to the the cutting off of debate on a whole long list of amendments to this Young Liberals of Canada they might get a scholarship. Somehow very important bill. The Group No. 1 amendments alone constitute the government is going to differentiate and decide who gets the over a dozen motions. How can these types of motions be scholarships. adequately addressed when debate has been limited? That is not totally true. The hon. member who spoke before me Not only do they want to cut off debate, they are heckling and said that there is going to be one student on the board. I am sure the directing inappropriate comments at opposition speakers who stand government can find one Liberal student, but after this maybe not. here today wanting to hold this government accountable to the people of Canada. They direct those comments at us to distract us from the little time that we are allowed to speak on this bill. The fact is, there is no budget surplus to help Canadians in a unified way because of the false accounting practices of this government. That is the fact. This millennium fund is the latest This group of amendments specifically deals with the millen- example of that. The finance minister has put $2.5 billion into the nium fund. I listened in somewhat stony silence as the hon. 1998 budget. He has built it in, but he has not spent the money yet. member opposite— The money will be spent down the road.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That is exactly what is between your ears. The auditor general on March 18 responded to a threatening letter from finance officials by saying ‘‘I believe the change will Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, he had his opportunity to speak. Now open the door for governments to influence reporting results by he is heckling me, trying to throw me off track when I am trying to simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then deciding drive home the message to the viewing public that there are what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end of the year fallacies contained in his prepared speech that probably came out once preliminary numbers are known’’. of the minister’s office or the Prime Minister’s office and was handed to him a few minutes before he walked into the Chamber. The facts are very clear. The government is trying to separate students. It is trying to pit student against student. Very clearly He stood and read it. If he really wants to debate the millennium during the last election campaign, and we are nearing the first fund and how much support it has, then why do we not have a anniversary of this new government since the June 2 election a year debate about that instead of him standing and reading a prepared ago, we laid out our plan on how we would help all students. We speech? did not hear anything back then about a millennium fund. This is something that the government has come up with to pit student against student. It will help a quarter of them. What about the other The fact is that the millennium fund is going to be a disgrace. It three-quarters who are seeing tuition costs rising? is going to be a failure. Why? The reason is simple. We pointed it out during the budget debate. I am sure the pages watching this debate today will be interested in this because, once again, what we The fact is, these students cannot afford huge increases in the see is that the Liberal government wants to differentiate between cost of obtaining their education. The Liberal government with its May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7109

Government Orders millennium fund is effectively bringing down a subsidy for people The federal initiative makes no sense. It is despicable and like Bill Gates because of the huge brain drain of our brightest shameful, as well as wasteful. In this day and age, it is unaccept- young students. They get their education here and end up going to able to waste money in education just to satisfy the Prime work for companies like Microsoft. The richest man in the world is Minister’s vanity. getting a subsidy courtesy of the Liberal government because it has refused to address fundamental issues like high taxes that drive our Why am I so convinced that it is a waste? For a reason that I will young people away from our country to seek employment in the try to make clear. Under the legislation, scholarships will be United States where taxes are more reasonable. awarded based on merit to help the best students, not those who most need the money so they can become successful, but those who That is a fundamental issue that this government is not address- are the best students and are also in need. ing and the government refuses to address it. This is not the policy that was developed in Quebec over the [Translation] years. It is not even the policy that was developed in the other provinces and applied by the federal government, but this is another issue. Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to address this issue, but not under these circum- In Quebec, we chose a system that help students in need who, of stances. Shame on the government for moving time allocation. course, also make the grade. What does a needs-based system Why? Because this bill makes no sense and it knows it. This is mean? It means that a completely different structure will have to be obvious in Quebec, where there is a consensus against the bill. built. Criteria will have to be set for each subject, to determine who are the best students, how many there are and how to go about it.

D (1345) A burdensome bureaucracy will have to be put in place. Even though it is a private foundation, it will be burdensome and The federal government has taken a very drastic approach to bureaucratic, because there is no other way to determine who are reducing the deficit by cutting transfer payments for health, the best students. Even the system currently in place in Quebec education and welfare. At the same time, by tightening eligibility would become a lot more burdensome and would have to undergo requirements for employment insurance benefits, it ensured that major changes if it were to use criteria based on merit, in addition the employment insurance fund would grow; it will soon contain to those based on needs. $19 billion. This is an extremely harsh and severe bite. D (1350) What is the federal government doing with the bite taken out of transfer payments to the provinces, now that it has reached zero The system is not designed for that, nor are the universities or deficit? It has given a $2.5 billion budget to a private sector the student loan system. This is wasteful. It means that every dollar foundation responsible for distributing scholarship cheques, with a of the $2.5 billion, and of the portion to which Quebec is entitled little maple leaf in the corner and the Prime Minister’s signature at but has no certainty of getting anyway, will not go to student aid. the bottom I guess. This is totally scandalous.

The truth of the matter is that, in Quebec, these drastic cuts in The Liberals, who made such slashes to welfare, health and education have turned universities into institutions where it is education, and have padded the employment insurance fund, are increasingly difficult to receive quality education, not because patting themselves on the back that this hard earned money will go, teachers and students are not doing their best, but rather because not to education, but to stroke the ego of the Prime Minister of the conditions they are facing are increasingly difficult. Canada.

This Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation is unaccept- There have been countless wage cuts, job cuts, student-teacher able in every way. What an image it gives of federalism. A few ratio increases, budget cuts for research, labs, while all of these are days before the referendum, our Prime Minister said he would take essential to quality education. Quebec’s needs into account. What an image. What discourage- ment about today’s federalism, if the division of power under the What is the point of having $3,000 scholarships after the year Constitution makes it so hard for the central government to 2000, when the system itself has been hurt and impaired? It is so perform its functions that it must also assume the functions of the shameful that there is a consensus in Quebec—which is even provinces. echoed across the country—that the federal government has no business in this area. This is an ill-conceived project. The govern- It is not content with the way things are, not satisfied, so it ment must give back to Quebec the money earmarked for educa- decides to see that the provinces’ educational systems follow the tion, so that the province can help students pursue their education line it sets. Come now, this makes no sense because when it comes through its own loans and scholarships program. to getting the best use of funds, each level of government has its 7110 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

S. O. 31 responsibilities and must exercise them. In other words, I repeat, it In 1964, the government of Lester B. Pearson suggested making would require one more bureaucracy—and this is already happen- interest-free loans available to Canadian students. When this ing, as people have been hired. federal education subsidy was opposed by Jean Lesage, a Liberal, the Pearson government then wisely declared that, if a province preferred to stick with its own loans program, it would be entitled What recourse will students or universities have? None at all. to equivalent compensation. So said a Liberal. The government of How will Quebec be sure of having its share? It will not. Public the day had tried unsuccessfully to interfere in the area of money and officials will be administered by a private foundation education. The right to opt out of student financial assistance under criteria that it will set for itself according to the very broad programs with compensation has existed since 1964. principles in the law. Will the Liberal government be as fair a player in 1998? We are concerned, I note in passing, about the following in the Knowing that paragraphs 29(1) and 25(2) of Bill C-36 are designed bill: ‘‘The appointment of directors shall be made so as to ensure to block the transfer to the Government of Quebec of its fair share that (a) the Board is knowledgeable about post-secondary educa- for opting out of the millennium fund, one could have one’s doubts. tion’’, that should go without saying, ‘‘and learning in Canada and In order to have access to the program, Quebec will have to embark the needs of the Canadian economy; and (b) the directors are drawn on a series of long and pointless negotiations in a field where it has from the various regions of Canada.’’ University scholarships already proven itself. awarded on the basis of merit must not be given out according to the state of the Canadian economy, but according to the needs of Worse yet, in order to deny Quebec its right to opt out with the individual societies. compensation, the federal government has decided to create a foundation outside regular federal programs. The federal govern- ment’s imperialist attitude is beyond all understanding. Why did we in Quebec choose to have an assistance plan based on need and to ensure access to university to just about everyone Why interfere in Quebec’s loans and bursaries program when it with the ability? Because we think merit is encouraged by the is the most advanced in Canada? Quebec has built up an effective conditions of use and not because scholarships are given out on the and vigorous loans and bursaries program that is the envy of basis of merit. I think that the results indicate that we in Quebec students in other provinces. made the right choice. Why, just when the federal government has reduced its deficit to zero, is the Minister of Finance rushing to create additional Now the federal government is dismantling and derailing a federal-provincial duplication and again wasting taxpayers’ system that worked well. It is doing so in two ways. First it money? Now that it again has money to spend, the federal dangerously underfunded it and now it has just introduced new government is spending it in provincial jurisdictions. factors for which it will be spending money that would be infinitely better spent where it should rightly go. That is, to the educational The Speaker: My colleague, you will have more than six system, to assistance and as loans and scholarships to needy minutes to conclude your speech, but it being almost 2 p.m., the students. House will now proceed to statements by members.

D (1355) ______

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it brought down its budget last February, the STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS government once again demonstrated its lack of respect for the institutions and mechanisms developed by the people of Quebec during the quiet revolution. [Translation]

By creating millennium scholarships, the Liberal government is ALGONGUIN SECONDARY SCHOOL IN NORTH BAY once again poking its nose into a jurisdiction that belongs exclu- sively to Quebec, in this case education. Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of Algonquin secondary school in North Bay, my alma mater. It is rather ironic to see the Prime Minister of Canada trying to sell the Canadian Constitution to Quebeckers and to Canadians, During the Victoria Day weekend, or the Fête de Dollard when his own government is not even able to respect it. Section 93 weekend depending on one’s point of view, an organizing commit- of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes Quebec’s exclusive tee masterfully directed by Carole Laperrière, née Martineau, jurisdiction over education, and the millennium fund is an unprece- managed to bring together hundreds of Algonquin graduates from dented intrusion into this area of provincial jurisdiction. across the country. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7111

S. O. 31 This secondary school, which was originally called the bilingual lifetime director recognizes his achievements and contribution to school, was one of the first schools of its kind to be established agricultural and to the royal over many years. in Ontario following the adoption of Bill 168, introduced by the then Minister of Education, the hon. Bill Davis. I am happy to say that I know Rusty and his wife Helen well. This honour is well deserved. I am sure the royal agricultural This school has an important role to play in preserving and winter fair will benefit from his knowledge and experience for promoting the French language and culture in that part of Ontario. years to come. Well done, Rusty.

Long live Algonquin secondary school, its students, its staff and * * * its alumni. APEC * * * Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister of Canada hosted a conference for 21 APEC D (1400) finance ministers from May 22 to May 24 in Kananaskis, Alberta. They discussed a global financial strategy for coping with the [English] Asian crisis. With vision and leadership, the Minister of Finance made a proposal for a global mechanism to monitor the financial OLIVER, B.C. and banking system of the world. The G-8 leaders have recently endorsed such a plan. Again, our government is taking leadership Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. in providing a solution for a global crisis. Speaker, the riding of West Kootenay—Okanagan is one of the most scenic and beautiful in Canada. One of the jewels of the riding * * * is the town of Oliver in the Okanagan Valley. Oliver recently made the news under the caption ‘‘the hate capital of Canada’’. This was NOTEMAKERS the result of one inappropriate remark by an individual concerned about the racist content of an Internet service in Oliver which has Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, notemakers, since shut down. a pilot initiative of Industry Canada’s SchoolNet program, employs youth to help colleges and universities meet the challenge of the In actual fact the remark is about as far from the truth as information highway. Funded by the Canada youth employment possible. Oliver is a warm and friendly blend of just about every strategy, this initiative combines the Internet skills of young racial origin imaginable. Population groups include aboriginal Canadians with the knowledge and experience of university and people, Portuguese and East Indian with lesser numbers of other college educators to produce high quality post-secondary learn- European, Asian and Latin American people. ware. From June 19 to 21 Oliver will be holding its sunshine festival. Notemakers helps our youth gain marketable work experience This year will feature a multicultural celebration. I invite all that they can transfer to jobs in Canada’s emerging knowledge Canadians to visit Oliver this summer, especially during the economy. I saw this firsthand when the University of Prince festival. Visitors will find orchards, vineyards, warm beaches and Edward Island participated in the last competition. Three full time some of the finest wineries in Canada or abroad. Even more positions were created as a result of the notemakers program. important, they will find a warm and friendly local population that Universities and colleges benefit and Canada benefits as a whole. will go out of its way to make sure visitors have a wonderful and memorable stay. Success from the first competition has led this government to open a second competition. Interested universities and colleges have until June 2, 1998 to submit their proposals. I encourage them * * * to take advantage of notemakers and build for tomorrow.

DR. RUSSELL MCDONALD * * *

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate IRELAND my good friend Dr. Russell McDonald of Oxford county on his being named an honorary director for life of the royal agricultural Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on winter fair. Dr. McDonald, or Rusty as he is better known, has Friday the people of Ireland took a brave step toward a future of served as a member of the board of directors for the winter fair for peace and away from their violent past. By voting to endorse the the past 20 years. A veterinarian by profession, Rusty served on the Good Friday agreement in overwhelming numbers, both Unionists board as a representative of the artificial insemination industry. He and Nationalists of the north together with the citizens of the Irish is one of the founders and a former general manager of the Western Republic have said no more to the men of violence. They have Ontario Breeders Association. His appointment as an honorary chosen instead to develop democratic institutions where people 7112 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

S. O. 31 from both sides of the sectarian divide can work together in civility tional project return, the Department of Foreign Affairs and and where their still profound differences can be resolved by International Trade and the Department of Citizenship and Im- ballots and not bombs. migration has helped to search for, locate and return missing children. Let us not be misled that this is the beginning and not the end of the peace process. Millions of Canadians like me are either In 1997 alone customs and immigration assisted in the safe descendants or immigrants from Ireland. On behalf of all Cana- recovery of 111 children at the border, a 28% increase from 1996. dians we join them in praying that last Friday’s agreement may be A key element of this government’s public safety mandate— the beginning of a lasting peace in Ireland. The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. * * * * * * D (1405 ) HEAD START PROGRAM ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it Speaker, programs from Moncton to Hawaii to Michigan all is an honour and a privilege to welcome to our capital city His All demonstrate that early intervention programs improve parenting Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew the First, spiritu- skills, healthy babies, and reduce substance abuse and crime. al leader of all Orthodox Christians worldwide. This is indeed an They have shown a reduction of 50% in crime, 40% in teen historic visit for it is the first time in the history of Christianity that pregnancies, less dependence on welfare and a much more produc- an Ecumenical Patriarch visits Canada. tive life for these individuals. His All Holiness is the 270th successor to the Apostle Andrew. Today we are going to vote on Motion No. 261, a motion which Since his ascending to the ecumenical throne on November 2, calls for a national head start program. 1991, he has tirelessly pursued the vision of his enthronement message which is spiritual renewal, orthodox unity, Christian If we are to win the battle against crime, teen pregnancies, fetal reconciliation, interfaith tolerance and co-existence, protection of alcohol syndrome and provide our children with the tools to the environment and a world united in peace, justice, solidarity and become functional members in an increasingly hostile world, a love. head start program will do just that. It will give parents the tools to enable their children to grow up in an environment free of rancour Known to Europe as the Green Patriarch, His All Holiness has and abuse. taken the lead among all religious leaders in his concerns for the environment. We here in Canada not only applaud but support this So far five provinces and territories are on side. I implore the endeavour wholeheartedly. House to vote for Motion No. 261 to work together with the provinces and build a stronger, secure and safe environment for all Time does not permit me to go on in great detail about his our children. achievements but let me just say in closing we welcome him to Canada and I am sure his stay will be a memorable one. * * * * * * [Translation] [Translation] DAVID LEVINE MISSING CHILDREN DAY Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has been unworthy of his functions again. Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Instead of condemning without reservation the intolerant reaction Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Missing Children Day. against the appointment of David Levine as head of the Ottawa This special day is an opportunity to educate Canadians about Hospital, he launched an attack against the Quebec government what they can do to protect their children from becoming the which he accuses of all evils. victims of crime. In the Levine case, the Prime Minister should have reminded It is also an opportunity for all Canadians to recognize the Canadians that freedom of opinion is a fundamental right for outstanding work of law enforcement agencies and other partners everybody. Instead of doing his duty, he preferred to engage in in finding missing children. partisan politics and to contribute directly to the climate of intolerance that has developed in the Canadian capital. [English] The Bloc Quebecois hopes that in the future the Prime Minister Under our missing children’s program, the RCMP’s missing will state clearly that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms children’s registry in partnership with Revenue Canada’s interna- applies to all without discrimination. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7113

S. O. 31 [English] Originally the RCMP was established as a frontier police force which went west to prepare the way for a peaceful development of IRELAND the prairies. As the country grew in population and its communities became more established, the RCMP adapted and expanded its Mr. Pat O’Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on jurisdiction. Friday, May 22 the people of Ireland opened the door to peace in Today the Mounties and their proud record of service are their beautiful island. recognized throughout the world. Both in the north and south the Irish people voted decisively to [Translation] end the tragic era of brutal violence and sectarian hatred and to move forward in peace. Both in the Republic of Ireland and in I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those Northern Ireland the results of the voting demonstrate clearly that men and women who have dedicated their whole life with honour people of good will in Ireland are united in their desire for peace, and pride to the protection of their fellow Canadians. equality and justice for all. I am sure all members in the House will join me in congratulat- D (1410 ) ing the RCMP for having reached this turning point in the history of this country and in wishing its members all the best in keeping As Canadians we can understand very well the compromise that their commitment to the security of all Canadians. was necessary in Ireland to reach a peace accord which has been so Congratulations to all members of the RCMP. overwhelmingly endorsed by the Irish people.

As Canadians we are proud of the good work being done by * * * General John De Chastelaine. We join with peace loving people everywhere in applauding the historic breakthrough just achieved QUEBEC FLAG in Ireland. We pray that this historic and courageous first step will succeed in creating an enduring peace throughout all of Ireland. Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speak- er, yesterday, in Quebec, thousands of people marked the 50th anniversary of the Quebec flag. * * * Adopted in 1948 by the government, the flag was well received by the people. The Gazette even pointed out that the Fleur de Lys MISSING CHILDREN ‘‘takes heraldic data into account and is an emblem of exceptional Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d’Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 19 beauty’’. years ago this morning a six-year old boy left home to catch a At the beginning of the quiet revolution, the Fleur de Lys became school bus and disappeared. His name was Etan Patz. He is still the symbol of Quebec’s distinctiveness and desire to achieve missing but he has not been forgotten. In 1986 the Canadian self-determination. Today, Quebeckers of all political stripes feel Government declared May 25 national missing children’s day in that their flag is the symbol of a pluralist community open to the commemoration of Etan and the thousands of children like him world and that continues, as the Council of Europe pointed out, to who have disappeared without a trace. be an example to follow in the treatment of minorities. To honour and remember those children and their families still Since respect for one another is the rule in Quebec, the Bloc grieving over their loss, the Missing Children Society of Canada Quebecois is confident that the Fleur de Lys will remain for all asks all Canadians to participate in the third annual light the way Quebeckers a symbol of rallying and tolerance and a guarantee of home campaign. The society asks all Canadians to turn on their the freedom of speech and opinion. porch lights this evening as a sign of solidarity. Through this simple act we show the families of the missing that they are not * * * forgotten. We shine the lights, expressing our hope that some of these children will find their way home. [English]

* * * YARMOUTH FERRY SERVICE Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on May 28 the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE Yarmouth tourism officials along with local businesses will cele- brate the beginning a new high speed ferry service between Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speak- Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, Maine. er, 125 years ago this month the House of Commons adopted a law that created the North-West Mounted Police, the forerunner to the Bay Ferries Ltd., led by President Mitch McLean, has taken over Royal Canadian Mounted Police. the services previously provided by Marine Atlantic, replacing the 7114 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Oral Questions old Bluenose ferry with a high speed catamaran capable of Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologize today to those victims carrying 900 passengers and 250 vehicles. with hepatitis C from tainted blood?

This new ferry is capable of reaching speeds of 90 kilometres per Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hour, reducing the length of the crossing from 6 hours to 2.5 hours, the hon. member has raised an interesting question. The important making West Nova a much more attractive destination area for our thing to note is that there is a working group of officials from all U.S. neighbours. It is anticipated that this new service will create the provinces and the federal government looking at options in this 400 tourism related jobs and generate $15 million in direct matter. They are working to develop fair solutions. We should economic spinoffs. allow them to do their work. We invite the co-operation of all Canadians with this working group. As May is officially designated national tourism month, I take this opportunity to wish Bay Ferries Ltd. every success with its huge endeavour and at the same time welcome all members of this Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime House to vacation in my beautiful constituency of West Nova. Minister does not get it and I guess the Deputy Prime Minister does not get it. This blood was tainted. It is quite different from getting hepatitis C from dirty needles. * * * [Translation] I again ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will apologize to these victims of hepatitis C who did absolutely nothing wrong. FOREX PLANT Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): member should know by now the commitment of this government Mr. Speaker, May 20 marked the opening of the FOREX plant, a to look after the interests of those with any disease and particularly major wood panel plant in the municipality of Bois-Franc, in the hepatitis C. As a result of the initiative of this government there is Haute-Gatineau region. an offer of assistance that has been made to those who received tainted blood between 1986 and 1990 when those responsible could This project will create 325 jobs for plant and forestry workers have acted to prevent it and did not. and give a boost to the whole region that I represent. All provinces at present are taking part in the working group I am proud that the Canadian government has contributed $1.2 looking at options to take other steps. million to this project for manpower training programs. Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is just like a D (1415) broken record. However this is a new issue. The Prime Minister The FOREX plant will require a $120 million investment, which insulted all these victims. He said that if we compensate those will make it one of the most important in the world for the victims we are going to have to compensate those who got hepatitis production of oriented strand panels. C from dirty needles. This is not about heroin. This is not about crack. This is not about a dirty alley. This is about people who did This is another issue that shows that our government is com- nothing wrong. Will they apologize now? mitted to help Quebec regions and to ensure the development of such a strategic area in terms of the exploitation and processing of Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our natural resources. unlike the hon. member, I have the exact transcript of what the Prime Minister said. He did not insult hepatitis C victims. He did ______not intend to insult them. He was merely talking about some factors that deserved to be considered. That is all he did and the hon. member should recognize that.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister did was insult hepatitis C victims regard- [English] less of any comments he may or may not have made.

HEPATITIS C Before the Prime Minister left on this latest junket of his, he could not bring himself to admit that he was wrong regarding Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime compensation for hepatitis C victims. Minister has insulted all the victims with hepatitis C from tainted blood by comparing them to people who contracted hepatitis C I would like to ask the following question of the government. Is from dirty needles. Hepatitis C from dirty needles is off the street it not true that the Prime Minister gave one instruction and one and hepatitis C from tainted blood is actually from government instruction only for the health minister when he left on this latest approved blood. junket which was to scuttle the deal? May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7115

Oral Questions Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources was this government that put the deal in place. It was this Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in working on this employment government that involved the provincial and territorial govern- insurance reform, we have tried to strike a balance in the best ments in making the deal. Until the Prime Minister and this interest of all Canadians. We believe that this balance has improved government initiated the process every health minister in the the situation of Canadians with respect to job market. country was refusing to talk about compensating those with hepatitis C. Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The instructions of the Prime Minister and the position of this Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: For instance, as a result of the EI government are that the interests of the hepatitis C victims should reform, we are more focused on a number of active measures. be taken into account and compensation to be offered on proper Members across the way never discuss the reform as a whole or principles. That is exactly what we have done. other initiatives which help Canadians get back to work instead of staying on EI. Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is some line from the health minister who said the file is Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. closed. Speaker, let us talk about balance and improved situation. In 1990, 72.5% of unemployed youth received UI benefits, while in 1997, The Prime Minister wrote to Premier Mike Harris stating the only 26% did. following ‘‘I note your recent decision to move beyond this principled initiative to play a role in those areas where no Does the minister realize that, while making fine-sounding government responsibility has been identified’’. speeches on youth, he is excluding three young persons out of four from his so-called employment insurance plan? D (1420 ) Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources I would like to ask the health minister on behalf of his Prime Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stated repeatedly in the Minister, when is the Prime Minister going to become principled, House that we are concerned about the participation rate of the admit that he was wrong and compensate all hepatitis C victims? unemployed in our employment insurance system, and we have asked Statistics Canada to determine why this is so. Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was principles that led us to persuade the provinces to join with us I would appreciate it if the Bloc Quebecois also paid attention to in the agreement to offer assistance to 22,000 people who con- the numerous youth programs we have developed. Instead of tracted hepatitis C through the blood system. forcing them unto employment insurance, we provide them with internship and community work opportunities to help them get into We have now organized a working group to look anew at all the the workforce. That is what we are doing for our young people, and options for dealing with those with hepatitis C as a result of the fact I think this is much more helpful. that at least two of the provinces have changed their positions from the original agreement. Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. If the member would let that working group get its job done, let ministers and governments examine the options, she would be a lot Young people are not the only ones suffering because of the farther ahead. minister’s so-called reform. Women too, the very people the minister kept telling everyone would benefit greatly from the reform, are also among the victims. * * * If he truly wished to help advance the cause of women, what is [Translation] the minister waiting for to end the discrimination to which they are subject and give them maternity leave benefits under the same EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE conditions as other workers?

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Speaker, according to an internal memo from the Department of Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our reform has substantially Human Resources Development obtained through access to infor- improved women’s access to maternity leave. mation, 72% of the $6 billion in surplus generated by successive employment insurance reforms was the result of government An hon. member: Wrong. cutbacks. An hon. member: Liar. Will the minister admit that, out of the $6 billion saved in the EI plan in 1996, $4.3 billion was saved through repeated cuts made on Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Up until now, the number of women the backs of the unemployed? on leave and women who worked part time— 7116 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Oral Questions The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec. Last week we invited the caucus colleague of the leader of the NDP to meet with officials in my department. She was given a full Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the minister should get explanation of what is going on. The member now knows because with it and look at the facts— officials told her that as a result of a shortage under the special access program we have imported albumin into this country at the The Speaker: I apologize. I thought the hon. minister had request of physicians. It meets standards of safety both here and in finished. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development has the United States. the floor.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, what I was attempting Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they are to say, when I was interrupted by opposition members, who are laxed out standards to try to evade the fact that this minister is not unable to face up to the facts of this EI reform, is that 500,000 attending to his responsibilities. part-time workers, largely women therefore, were not covered under the system the Bloc Quebecois keeps wanting to bring back. Judge Krever recommended that the federal government ‘‘retain the duty and authority to make decisions about products to be D (1425) distributed in Canada’’. Yet this government has gutted the health protection branch to the point where the safety of blood products Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the for Canadians can no longer be assured. Has the minister learned minister should get with it and look squarely at the facts instead of nothing from the hepatitis C tragedy? trying to hide his lack of compassion for women behind a cloud of fine words. Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have them over to the department again and How does the minister explain that, with the birthrate down by take them through the facts one more time. 1% in 1997, maternity leave benefits were down by 6%? The reality is that for the first time, Health Canada under this Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources government is requiring all foreign blood product manufacturers to Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member also continu- sell their product through a licensed Canadian importer. We put ally fails to mention is that women who were not covered in the new and stringent requirements in place. The product referred to by past are covered now. the member meets health and safety standards both in the United Women who were on maternity leave or who decided to raise a States and in Canada. family now have access to active measures and training to which they did not have access before, once they have raised their families and decide to re-enter the job market. * * *

Our reform seeks to strike a balance. Once women have raised SOMALIA INQUIRY their families, they are now entitled to assistance in re-entering the job market because of EI reform and they are glad of it. Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, any communication between a lawyer and a * * * client is privileged information, yet the Minister of Justice’s own officials gave a confidential letter dated May 4 received from the [English] chairman of the Somalia inquiry to the defence department. The inquiry’s findings of course were reviewed by the federal court and HEALTH further litigation is pending.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unli- The minister’s own government shut down the Somalia inquiry censed albumin blood product is being used on Canadians. Health early. Can she now explain why she would violate solicitor-client officials say ‘‘Don’t worry, no problem. It has been approved in the privilege in further undermining this important public inquiry? U.S.’’ The truth is that this blood product manufacturer has been hauled into the courts for extensive safety violations. Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney The health minister has a responsibility to protect the blood General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter in question was supply. Can the minister honestly assure Canadians that this blood not impressed with solicitor-client privilege. Neither Mr. Justice product is safe? Létourneau nor the functus commission were the client in this case. It is the Government of Canada that is being sued. Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as recently as an hour ago I asked that very question of officials. I was Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, assured that the product in question meets safety standards not only PC): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that this government is leaking in the United States but also in Canada. like a sieve. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7117

Oral Questions The minister’s own justice officials gave a confidential letter Is it not true that the minister is more interested in political that was dated May 4 to the department of defence. On April 28, damage control than in any real control of abuse in the military? Justice Barbara Reed threw out some of the findings of the Somalia inquiry because the inquiry’s representatives from the Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Department of Justice did not file adequate affidavits. The depart- Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We want justice to prevail in ment has an obligation to represent the client with diligence. these cases. We want to fully integrate men and women into the Canadian forces. We want them to be able to work side by side in a Is the justice minister prepared to fully defend the client, the harassment free and an abusive free environment. Somalia inquiry, and to announce that she will be appealing the commission’s findings? We have put new training procedures into effect. We will do whatever is needed to make sure in future the message is clear that Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney there will be no such discrimination in the Canadian forces. General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because in fact this government is in the process of making a decision as to whether we are going to appeal the decision of Madam Justice Barbara Reed, I * * * will not comment on the specific case. [Translation] Let me assure the hon. member that the client in this case is not Mr. Justice Létourneau. The client is not the Somalia commission. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE In fact the hon. member as a lawyer should know that the commission is functus. The client in this case is the Government of Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témis- Canada. couata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Human Resources Development keeps trying to defend the inde- * * * fensible, while he is trying to convince the unemployed who cannot collect benefits that the reform is good for them, the surplus in the D (1430 ) employment insurance fund continues to grow. Between the begin- ning and the end of oral question period, the surplus will have increased by $700,000. NATIONAL DEFENCE Will the minister admit that, if the surplus increases at the Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speak- incredible rate of $700,000 per hour, it is, among other reasons, er, yet another terrible mess is coming to light in the defence because there are 500,000 more people than before who are department. Not only do women and men in the military suffer contributing to the fund, even though they have little chance of ever appalling living conditions and subsistence wages. It has now been collecting benefits? revealed that the government has been sitting by while military officials regularly cover up cases of rape and physical abuse. Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Why is the Liberal government condoning such abuses by its when we took office, there was a $6 billion deficit in the employ- years of inaction? ment insurance fund. We had to eliminate this deficit and that is what we did. Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say unequivocally that the government Some hon. members: Oh, oh. will not tolerate matters of sexual abuse or sexual harassment in the Canadian forces. Hon. Paul Martin: Yes, we did. I am very pleased to say that there is now a surplus, a reserve in the employment insurance fund. The government is taking action. We have established harass- This is our guarantee against an increase in premiums. ment advisers in each of the units across the country to help us deal with these issues. We have established the national investigation An hon. member: Another liar. service which provides for military police independent of the operational chain of command to be able to investigate these Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témis- matters. couata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of chatting endlessly with technocrats in the comfort of their offices, why do Very soon I will be announcing— the ministers not undertake to meet tomorrow morning the unem- ployed coming to Ottawa to tell us about the disastrous conse- The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill. quences of the government’s reform?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speak- Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources er, the minister thinks a little high flown rhetoric will cover up the Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel Liberal government’s complicity and the suffering and humiliation across the country, to meet with Canadians and discuss the impact of victims in our military. of our reforms with them. 7118 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Oral Questions Before I left and upon my return, I noticed that members of [Translation] the opposition promised to put to us in this House any question they may have. They were very active last week and we will be DAVID LEVINE pleased to hear what they have to say. Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week- The unemployed know full well that the purpose of the transi- end the Prime Minister found that the hue and cry over David tional job fund, along with the active measures, is to get them back Levine was, and I quote ‘‘rather artificial and unacceptable’’. to work as quickly as possible and to help them once they are back in the labour force. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not acknowledge that the Levine affair is first and foremost a political attack against freedom of opinion and that the last time this fundamental right was abused in * * * Canada was during the October crisis, when the Trudeau govern- ment arrested 500 Quebeckers without grounds? [English] Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen’s Privy Council NATIONAL DEFENCE for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people attached to their country and fearing its loss Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my because of the secessionist threat posed by the leaders of the Bloc question is for the Minister of National Defence. and the PQ allowed their fear to find expression in a deplorable reaction. When some female soldiers in the Canadian forces complained of being sexually harassed, they were ushered out of the military Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so now and given what was called a trauma based disability pension. what is happening to Mr. Levine is our fault. Really, I have seen it all. Is it not true that this trauma based disability pension is just another way of saying to some sexual harassment victims ‘‘If you Today the Prime Minister laid it on a little thick saying that, if leave without making a fuss, we will pay you some hush money?’’ the sovereignist question were resolved— Some hon. members: Oh, oh. D (1435 ) The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I am sure all members want to Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, hear the question and the answer. The hon. member for Roberval Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, but according to the defence has the floor. critic of the Reform Party the problem is having women in the military to start with. Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I under- stand that it hurts them to be reminded of their past and of what is He is suggesting, so it seems, that what we should do is get rid of currently happening to francophones and to Quebeckers. the victims. What the government is suggesting is that we should get rid of the perpetrators. Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is waxing eloquent, the Prime Minister said as he did that, if the problem of Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that independence were resolved, there would be no more problem in is exactly what some of these pensions are: a way for the top brass the Levine matter. In the minister’s opinion, will the Canadian in the Canadian military to sweep these problems under the rug. Charter of Rights and Freedoms not apply to sovereignists so long as we exist? Not only are these victims being told to go away quietly, but the perpetrators of these offences are being allowed to go free, to Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, continue working for the Canadian forces. I think most Canadians, including Quebeckers, will consider the attempt by the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois to promote Why is the minister turning a blind eye to this problem instead of separatism by using the Levine affair deplorable. It is totally bringing these offenders to justice? deplorable.

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, * * * Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Again their research is faulty. [English]

Many of these people have been brought to justice. Many of NATIONAL DEFENCE them have been convicted and in fact have been put out of the Canadian forces. Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, from day one the Minister of National Defence said that he would We intend to continue to get to the heart of these matters. We not tolerate issues of sexual harassment in the military, but intend to deal with matters that are past, present and future in a just Canadians also recall the government saying that the Somalia way. inquiry would be allowed to do its work. Instead, what Canadians May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7119

Oral Questions saw was the delay of documents delivered to the inquiry of sity, are unanimous in calling for the federal government to amend commission and the eventual silence of the inquiry by shutting it its bill on the millennium scholarships. down early. Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize Now we see that Justice Létourneau, the chairman of the that his refusal to do so until now reveals his true intentions and Somalia inquiry, has accused the government of conspiracy to proves he never had a mandate to negotiate, as well as how obvious undermine the inquiry. it is that he never intended to honour Quebec’s request to opt out with compensation? Given the government’s track record, how can the defence minister expect any member of the Canadian Armed Forces— Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the Government of Quebec was the one that broke off The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice. negotiations 10 days ago. It even cancelled the schedule of the two days of negotiations that were planned. D (1440 ) The hon. opposition member has just confirmed what we have Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney been saying here in the government since the start, which is that General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the their only desire was to have the right to withdraw with full government had staunchly defended the findings of the commis- compensation. Quebec has no intention to negotiate. There was no sion. We did so in the case referred to here this afternoon. We will desire whatsoever to commit to anything that could have lead to an continue to defend the Government of Canada which is the client in arrangement between the two governments. this case. I believe the hon. member has just given absolutely clear proof Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of this. He is saying the exact same thing, while the Prime Minister the government’s record on investigations in the military is abso- had already stated that this was not open to negotiation. lutely tragic. The government has shredded documents, lied to military police and undermined the Somalia inquiry. * * *

Canadians cannot rely on the government to investigate the [English] dozens of sexual harassment allegations with its past record. How can the members of the Canadian Armed Forces trust the govern- ment when all the minister cares about is cover-ups of the ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS government and not protecting their interests? Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that the Somalia commission got three extensions, went on three times as One of the challenges facing aboriginal people is access to long as it originally indicated it would. employment and training opportunities. Could the minister tell the House what action is being taken to address the serious issue of Lo and behold when it did make its recommendations, 83% of high unemployment among aboriginal people? them were fully agreed to by the government and are presently being implemented as is gender integration and our policy of not Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children allowing sexual abuse, getting to the bottom of all these issues and and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that there making sure that men and women can work together in a harass- are many exciting and promising initiatives being undertaken by ment free atmosphere. Human Resources Development Canada.

To begin with, HRDC is developing a five year aboriginal human * * * resources development strategy and is in the process of establish- ing an aboriginal human resources development sector council to [Translation] improve aboriginal people’s access to training and employment in many different sectors of the Canadian economy.

MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS This is an important part of the government’s response to a key recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all This strategy— political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, and the educa- tion coalition headed by Rector Bernard Shapiro of McGill Univer- The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley. 7120 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Oral Questions TRADE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. tourists are back on Parliament Hill. Of course I am referring to the There are now widespread reports of sexual harassment and rape in 15 Liberal backbenchers who returned from their junket to Italy, the armed services and the minister has called this poor behaviour. otherwise known as the taking care of favours tour. Now Canadians would like to ask a few questions about it. Can the minister indicate if there is a policy of zero tolerance in the armed forces? If there is not, why not? If there is, when will he Will the Prime Minister and the MPs have a slide show so that appoint an independent inquiry to find out why this policy has gone we can all benefit collectively from their experience? Will they be so wrong? throwing their souvenirs from the gallery right after question period? Did they serve Canadian ice wine from Pillitteri Estates at Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, all the official functions? Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes there is zero tolerance. We have zero tolerance for this kind of incident of sexual abuse. We do not want Most important, just how much did this taking care of favours those people who are the perpetrators of sexual abuse to be a part of tour actually cost taxpayers, or are we even allowed to know? the Canadian forces. We have, in fact, taken a number of measures to create better Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, training. We have a new program called the SHARP training Canadians would like to know why the Reform Party does not want program on harassment prevention. We have harassment advisers. Canada to strengthen trade relations with the seventh biggest We have the new national investigation service that operates economy in the world. independently of the operational chain of command, and soon we will appoint an ombudsman. We are taking every measure that is necessary to put that policy into effect. D (1445 ) Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Canadians would like to know why the advantages of having 1.5 Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that his department has no million fellow citizens of Italian origin should not be used to statistics on sexual harassment cases. As I said, he called this promote that trade. It just shows how off base the Reform Party is behaviour poor performance. How does he expect the armed forces when it comes to recognizing the strengths of Canadian diversity. to take anything like this seriously when all he does is call it poor performance? Does he not know it is more than that, that it is appalling performance? Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, are we not a bit sensitive about this trip? Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also used words like disgusting. I used words I understand that among Liberal MPs there are a few hurt like unacceptable, in addition to all of those words. feelings about this. People are upset. I understand that the Liberal MPs who went said they were upset because they were left in Rome We simply are not going to tolerate it. We are dealing with the while the actual business took place in Milan. matter and will continue to deal with the matter.

A Canadian diplomat said he was a little upset. He said a junket * * * is a junket. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers are upset. They had to foot the bill for this. HEALTH

Could the Prime Minister explain why he once criticized Brian Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is Mulroney so much for his travel, but now it is all right for him to understood that the Minister of Health has had trouble with the take his backbenchers on this taking-care-of-favours tour? concept of compensation for all hepatitis C victims.

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, It is reported, and I stress the word reported, that the health the hon. member talks about being left behind. The Reform Party, minister has frozen all new funding for breast cancer research and through his words, confirms it was left behind years ago when it AIDS treatment. He is saying that he is doing this pending the comes to recognizing the value of Canadian diversity, especially outcome of the hepatitis C compensation package. the contribution of Italian Canadians, the 1.5 million who are represented in this House but not by his party, and they never will I want some clarification. Is this in fact the minister’s position? be if he keeps talking like that. If it is not his position, what is his position? May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7121

Oral Questions Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, area. It will address certain diseases such as Alzheimer and certain those reports are absolutely false. Health Canada continues to do cardiovascular problems associated with aging. business as always. Last December 1, for example, we announced the renewal of the AIDS strategy, phase three. We had long The best news of all is, not only will it be at the forefront in the planned to announce later this week particulars of the allocation world, it will create 100 good jobs for western Canadians. of that money. * * * Our work continues in preparing the breast cancer initiative.

Health Canada continues to serve the people of Canada properly TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND by putting programs in place for their health. Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how is this for a job buying fiasco? In October last year human resources D (1450 ) development spent a cool $1 million of taxpayers’ money from the transitional jobs fund for BPS Imaging, a call centre in Newfound- Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am glad land. Now, a mere seven months later, BPS has closed its doors and to hear that and I appreciate that coming from the minister. 124 people are out of work.

The question today, and we have been pounding away on this for Why did the minister not secure the funds with BPS assets or put weeks and weeks, concerns compensation for those hepatitis C the money into job training that actually works? victims before and after the years 1986 to 1990. Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources I ask the minister, where are those negotiations leading? Has the Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the particular minister accepted the fact that all victims should be compensated? case that the opposition member is raising.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the However, what I can tell him is that on every project involving Government of Canada continues to believe that it is in the interests the transitional jobs fund there is a lot of consultation with the of all of those who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system provincial governments. We look at every one of them in a very that there be a national approach to this issue. That is why we are serious fashion. taking part in and leading a working group which is already under way, looking at options available to governments to deal with the With $300 million the government has created thousands of very interests of all of those who got hepatitis C through the blood good jobs in Newfoundland and in the rest of Canada. system. * * * As soon as that work is concluded and governments have a position I shall report it to the House. [Translation]

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES * * * Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Speaker, day after day, we hear stories of women in the Canadian armed forces who were raped, sexually mistreated or sexually Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, research harassed. and development is vital to a healthy and prosperous economy. The response of the Minister of National Defence is as follows, and I quote ‘‘I have no statistical information that would indicate Would the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Develop- that the problem is more serious in the armed forces than in the rest ment please tell the House what the government is doing to foster of Canadian society’’. world class scientific research in western Canada? Are we to understand from this irresponsible statement that the Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Re- minister views rape, sexual mistreatment and sexual harassment in search and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), the armed forces as acceptable, as long as they stay within the Lib.): Mr. Speaker, science, research and development continue to national average? be priorities of the Western Economic Diversification. [English] There have been a number of important announcements, the most recent in Winnipeg, Manitoba on Friday, where it was Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, announced that $2.1 million will be provided to fund a centre on Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I had no statistical information expertise for the aging. It will be at the forefront of research in this which would indicate that it is any worse than in Canadian society. 7122 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Oral Questions I would also say that it runs against the core values of Canadians solution for these victims, when their numbers and the associated and of the vast majority of the men and women in our Canadian compensation figures are not even known? forces. Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, What the hon. member does not seem to have heard is that I also these are the very questions now before the task force set up ten said that what I read in those articles with respect to that kind of days ago by the federal and provincial governments. conduct, behaviour and attitude is disgusting. That kind of beha- viour is not going to be allowed in the Canadian forces. We have The task force has already begun its work. We expect results to taken action and will continue to take action. be available shortly. I advise the hon. member to wait for the results of the task force’s work, at which time its conclusions can be examined. * * *

FISHERIES * * *

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. [English] Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. THE ECONOMY I want to say that we welcome the important steps taken by the minister to save B.C.’s endangered coho salmon last week. Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the House what new steps he is taking to get a treaty that stops Alaskans from fishing our coho while B.C. There has been a great deal of suffering felt by thousands in Asia fishers stand by? as a result of the recent economic crisis. This weekend Canada hosted the Asia-Pacific finance ministers. Can the minister tell us When will the minister respond to the important recommenda- what action will be taken to address the human and social impact of tions of the Copes commission on fisheries renewal and saving our this crisis? threatened small boat fleet and coastal communities? Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in D (1455 ) situations of economic crisis such as occurred in Indonesia and other Asian countries the IMF must move very quickly in order to Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, recreate confidence in capital markets. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the question of the discussions with the Government of Alaska and the Government of the United States of The hon. member is very justified in pointing out that the real America, last Thursday I requested that the Canadian negotiator, cost is borne by individual populations, by women and by children Dr. Donald McRae, get in touch with his American counterpart to who are forced to drop out of school. As a result of that Canada pass on the information with respect to the coho conservation plans took a very strong position at the APEC meeting that the World of Canada. Bank must move in parallel with the IMF in order to directly alleviate the suffering that is being felt. On Friday I had a discussion with the governor of Alaska. We agreed that we would resume the negotiations between the United I am glad to say that the president of the World Bank was there. States and Canada this week, and I believe that will be on Thursday He also spoke to the same position. The vast majority of finance in Juneau. ministers supported it. I take the hon. member’s question as support from this House for that position. * * *

[Translation] * * *

HEPATITIS C FISHERIES

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Speaker, for weeks, not to say months, the opposition has been this government has failed the people of B.C. during the last five urging the Minister of Health to compensate all hepatitis C victims. years by its inability to resolve the Pacific salmon dispute. Unless the minister is ready to put some teeth into this we will never get it The minister has even said that compensating all victims fairly resolved. would lead to the collapse of Canada’s health system. Is the minister prepared to take some actions against the U.S. How can he say such a thing when the exact number of hepatitis fishermen and prevent U.S. fishing vessels from crossing into C victims is not even known right now? What is he doing to find a Canadian waters until this dispute is resolved? May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7123

Routine Proceedings Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, POINTS OF ORDER Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been these last few months. COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD We will be resuming negotiations with the Americans. This follows the offer of the Alaskan government to communicate, Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, co-operate and collaborate on the issue of coho preservation. in today’s question period I said that Italy had the seventh biggest economy. Actually it has the fifth biggest economy. Canada has the We have had discussions with the American federal government. seventh. I appreciate the opportunity to make this correction. We expect that there will be negotiations taking place in Juneau on Thursday of this week. In addition, the governor and I have agreed [Translation] that we will meet together sometime in the next two weeks. Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I heard a member use what I believe to be * * * unparliamentary language. [Translation] I heard the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot call the Minis- ter of Human Resources Development a liar not once but twice. I CANADIAN ARMED FORCES ask that he withdraw his insulting and unparliamentary comments.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I too heard the word ‘‘liar’’ question is for the Minister of National Defence. during question period, but I could not tell who had uttered it. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is saying it was the I would like to remind the minister that there are women who member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. have had to abandon their career in the Canadian armed forces, and that others are afraid to enlist. He is not in the House at the moment, therefore I shall wait for his return. We can then discuss the matter. What action does the minister propose to take, aside from making ridiculous and irresponsible statements, to bring an end to the problem of harassment? ______[English]

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chief of defence staff has made it quite clear that our policies are to be adhered to with respect to a harassment-free atmosphere. That is going right down the chain of [Translation] command.

In addition, we have put in place harassment advisors. There is ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS the national investigative service that I mentioned before. As well, good training programs have been put into effect over the last Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the couple of years. Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in D (1500 ) Council appointments which were made by the government.

We will continue in this way to ensure that men and women can Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are work together in an harassment free atmosphere. deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.

* * * * * * PRESENCE IN GALLERY GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ibrahim Ferradaz, Minister for Foreign Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Investments and Economic Collaboration, Cuba. Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in Some hon. members: Hear, hear. both official languages, the government’s response to 10 petitions. 7124 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Routine Proceedings

D (1505) PETITIONS

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE MARRIAGE

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have petition from members of my riding of Bruce—Grey, in particular the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of those around the Owen Sound area. They ask that parliament define the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Develop- marriage in the Canadian statutes as a union between an unmarried ment on the subject of the enforcement of the Canadian Environ- male and an unmarried female. mental Protection Act ant the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act. Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from Mr. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the Bud Boomer and June Boomer from my constituency. They pray government table a comprehensive response to the report within that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act 150 days. to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single female.

* * * JUSTICE [English] Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Mr. Ted Turner who asks parliament BANK ACT to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act and at the Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu’Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to same time to implement prevention programs such as a head start introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank mergers). program to address the root causes of crime.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it a HEPATITIS C requirement, unless there is an insolvency where a bank is going down, that before any merger can take place there must be a vote in Mr. Janko PeriŇ (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House of Commons so every member of the House can have a Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House a chance to vote on whether it is a good idea. This would not leave petition from 83 concerned citizens from my riding of Cambridge the decision solely in the hands of the Minister of Finance which is and surrounding areas. The petitioners draw the attention of the the status quo. It is a way of democratizing this place and making House to their concern for all Canadians who contracted hepatitis C our roles more meaningful on a very important issue that will face from the federally regulated blood system through no fault of their the Canadian population in the fall. own.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) D (1510 )

* * * The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada show compassion and fairness by acting on the recommendations of the Krever report calling for compensation to all those infected, CRIMINAL CODE as was done for those who contracted AIDS. Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Criminal FISHERIES Code (wearing of war decorations). Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private PC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table a petition member’s bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the from the citizens of Guysborough county in eastern Nova Scotia wearing of military decorations of order for military services. The pursuant to Standing Order 36. bill provides that relatives of deceased veterans may wear, without facing criminal sanctions on Remembrance Day, at a public This petition calls on parliament to revisit the issue of enterprise function or ceremony commemorating veterans, or in a circum- allocation of shrimp quota in eastern Canada with respect to a stance prescribed by cabinet, any order, decoration or medal listed proposal made by Seafreez and ACS, respectively, of Canso and in the Canadian orders, decorations and medals directive of Mulgrave. The petitioners are very concerned about this allocation. October 25, 1990. They feel it is essential to the survival of the community in question and is consistent with the efforts to Canadianize the (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) fisheries. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7125

Routine Proceedings It gives me great pleasure to table this petition on their behalf. MARRIAGE Hundreds of citizens have signed this petition and call on the government to give this urgent attention. Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present KOSOVO this petition on behalf of my constituents from Wardsville, Newbu- ry and Bothwell area of my riding. Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present to this House a petition signed by 114 of my constituents of The petitioners call on parliament to support private member’s Serbian descent petitioning this government to take action in Bill C-225 which would define marriage as a union between a reaching a peaceful solution to the Kosovo crisis. single male and a single female.

EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TAXATION

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I also have the two petitions today signed by a number of Canadians, including honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. I know from my riding of Mississauga South. that if I had asked the petitioners they would have supported the previous petition regarding high gas prices, but this is not about In the first the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that high gas prices. police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they execute their duties and that employ- This petition is concerned about the unfair tax system Canada ment benefits often do not provide sufficient compensation to the has. The petitioners point out a number of reasons why they think families of those who are killed in the line of duty. certain working people are being punished and unfairly treated by the tax system and they are calling for total tax reform. The public mourns the loss of these police officers and firefight- ers killed in the line of duty. Therefore the petitioners call on PENSIONS parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second the petitioners are concerned about some of the changes in the TAXATION present legislation Bill C-36 in terms of tinkering with the pension system. The petitioners believe it may reveal that the government Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the is planning a major overhaul of the pension system and they are second petition deals with the family and the petitioners draw to the simply pointing out that a complete public information process attention of the House that managing the family home and caring ought to be launched before any changes are contemplated. for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT The petitioners also agree with the national forum on health Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third deals which reported that the Income Tax Act discriminates against with the multilateral agreement on investment. The petitioners families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool point out that while it is set aside for the next six months they children. continue to be opposed to it as they understand it. They call on parliament not to sign the multilateral agreement on investment The petitioners therefore call on parliament to eliminate tax ever. discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool children. D (1515)

GASOLINE PRICES Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from almost 100 people in the Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a Peterborough area who are concerned about the multilateral agree- petition signed by a good number of petitioners from my riding. ment on investment. These petitioners are condemning the unwarranted increases in gasoline prices brought about by the pricing policies of major oil They ask parliament to impose a moratorium on ratification of companies operating in Canada. the MAI until full public hearings are held across the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to adopt opinions. legislation which would require gasoline companies to give 30 days written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an I notice that the signatures include representatives of the Peter- impending significant increase in the price of gasoline and that borough Diocese, Development and Peace, the King/Rubidge such a notice should also contain the reason or reasons for the Community Kitchen, the Peterborough Presbytery, the United increase and when it will take effect. Church of Canada, the Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice, 7126 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Routine Proceedings the PeterboroughTen Days for Global Justice and The Kiros Prayer (d) The cost to the Department of National Defence to operate Group in Peterborough. the project management office during the implementation phase for the procurement of the EH-101 helicopters was $15.5M in 1993-94 dollars. * * * NEWS RELEASE [Translation] Public Works and Government Services Canada and QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER E.H. Industries Ltd. For immediate release Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Date: January 23, 1996. following questions will be answered today: Nos. 38, 67 and 93. Settlement reached with E.H. Industries for EH-101 helicopter [Text] program.

Question No. 38—Mr. Gilles Bernier: Ottawa—The Government of Canada and E.H. Industries Ltd., a company jointly owned by Westland Helicopters Ltd. and Agusta With respect to the procurement of new maritime helicopters for the Department Spa, have negotiated a settlement agreement for E.H. Industries’ of National Defence, (a) how much will it cost to procure replacement helicopters for both the shipborne Sea King helicopters and the Labrador search and rescue claim arising from the cancellation of the $5.8 billion EH-101 helicopters; (b) what is the total cost of maintaining the Labrador and Sea king helicopter program. helicopters an extra six to ten years beyond the time they were to have been replaced under the EH-101 contract; (c) what was the total compensation paid to suppliers of the EH-101; and (d) what was the cost to the department of National Defence to The details of the agreement, reached in October 1995, were operate the project management office for the procurement of the EH-101 announced jointly today by the Honourable David Dingwall, helicopters? Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Enrico Striano, Managing Director, E.H. Industries Ltd. Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (a) The total project budget for the Canadian search and ‘‘Negotiating this settlement has been a long process and I am rescue helicopter, Labrador replacement, includes: a maximum of pleased that the Crown and E.H. Industries have reached this $593 million to E.H. Industries; plus approximately $200 million mutually satisfactory agreement,’’ the Minister said. ‘‘It is fair to in government costs for project management, training, spare parts, say that the Government of Canada has closed the books on the integrated logistics support, and a small contingency allowance. EH-101 helicopter program.’’

The estimated cost for the replacement of the Sea Kings will not The announcement of this agreement was delayed pending the be known until the government approves a Sea King replacement conclusion of negotiations between E.H. Industries and its subcon- project. The final cost will be known when the government tractors. announces its decision. Following a promise outlined in the Government’s Red Book, the contract with E.H. Industries for the supply of helicopters, (b) The annual steady state cost of supporting the Labradors is valued at $1.45 billion (1992 dollars) was terminated in November $36.4 M, current year 1997-98 dollars, and the cost of supporting 1993. the Sea Kings is $79.4 M, current year 1997-98 dollars. These costs include personnel, spares, modifications and engineering but not The settlement agreement with E.H. Industries totals $157.8 infrastructure costs such as base facilities and services. It should be million. This includes $136.6 million for the cost of work com- noted that new helicopters will also have an annual steady state pleted prior to termination and work in progress at the time of support cost. The delivery delay between the first delivery of a termination, and $21.2 million for termination costs. search and rescue SAR configured helicopter from the cancelled new shipborne aircraft new search and rescue helicopter project, The total termination costs include a $68 million settlement and the first delivery of a helicopter from the current Canadian reached earlier with Loral, the project’s other prime contractor and SAR helicopter project is approximately 12 months. The delay the $21.2 million settlement with E.H. Industries. associated with the delivery of the new maritime helicopter is unknown since the project has not been approved. The Government allocated $250 million in 1994-95 Main Esti- mates for termination costs of which only $89.2 million has been (c) The total compensation paid to suppliers of the EH-101 is required. detailed in the Public Works and Government Services Canada and E.H. Industries Limited joint news released dated January 23, 1996 To ensure that the approach to settlement was undertaken in a which follows. fair and reasonable manner and to provide an independent and May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7127

Routine Proceedings commercial perspective on various issues, the Crown enlisted the ‘‘The total termination costs include a $68 million settlement services of an independent consulting firm, Lindquist, Avey, reached earlier with Loral, the project’s other prime contractor, and Macdonald, Baskerville Inc. the $21.2 million settlement with E.H. Industries.’’ Funding for this consulting contract was provided in the Febru- The following information provides further clarification: ary 1995 federal budget and is therefore built into the existing EH-101 total project costs fiscal framework. Work related on the project that included project definition, Mr. Striano, expressing satisfaction with the final settlement research and development and project implementation: stated, ‘‘Although we regret the loss of this contract, I am pleased we have been able to close the matter with the Crown to our mutual $154.6 million satisfaction and now look forward to future opportunities for our Costs of work completed prior to termination and work in products in Canada.’’ progress at the time of termination. These monies were paid out Information: prior to termination of the contract in November 1993: Franca Gatto E.H. Idustries—$136.6 million Communications Loral—$98.4 million Public Works and Cost of contract termination: Government Services Canada E.H. Industries—$21.2 million (announced today) (819) 997-5421 Loral—$67.5 million (announced March 31, 1996) Andy Moorhead Total—$478.3 million Deputy Managing Director E.H. Industries PWGSC regrets the inconvenience and any confusion this may 011 44 125 238 6404 have caused. The English and French releases will be re-issued. NEWS RELEASE Question No. 67—Mr. John Duncan: Since the 1985 Pacific salmon treaty was signed what have been the Canadian and For immediate release American catches of salmon on the Taku and Stikine Rivers and specifically (a) the Date: January 23, 1996 total catch by year; (b) the catch for each country by year; and (c) the catch by salmon species by year? Erratum: Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, The english version of the news release issued by PWGSC this Lib.): Canadian and American catches of salmon on the Taku and morning concerning the settlement with E.H. Industries did not the Stikine Rivers in individual units are outlined in the tables include a paragraph that was included in the French version. attached.

Comparative Canadian and U.S. catches of Canadian-origin salmon from the Stikine River: 1985-1997 (data source is Canadian interception estimates: 1997; DFO, Whitehorse, Yukon) Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total 1985 1,411 4,622 6,033 25,464 39,339 64,803 2,175 79,166 81,341 2,356 16,724 19,080 1986 2,236 4,609 6,845 17,434 9,910 27,344 2,280 45,830 48,110 107 402 509 1987 2,501 7,274 9,775 9,615 6,051 15,666 5,731 15,320 21,051 646 3,220 3,866 1988 2,660 10,699 13,359 15,291 5,183 20,474 2,117 9,897 12,014 418 936 1,354 1989 2,969 7,349 10,318 20,032 19,296 39,328 6,098 53,879 59,977 825 2,596 3,421 1990 2,550 6,783 9,333 18,024 12,959 30,983 4,037 23,510 27,547 496 1,337 1,833 1991 1,811 6,667 8,478 22,763 41,658 64,421 2,648 47,760 50,408 394 1,953 2,347 1992 2,140 9,738 11,878 26,284 88,595 114,879 1,855 51,497 53,352 122 644 766 1993 2,103 16,204 18,307 47,197 119,186 166,383 2,616 24,684 27,300 29 97 126 1994 2,090 9,275 11,365 45,095 91,455 136,550 3,381 52,633 56,014 90 201 291 1995 1,946 4,827 6,773 53,467 87,932 141,399 3,418 27,923 31,341 48 106 154 1996 2,771 7,451 10,222 74,281 208,005 282,286 1,404 67,581 68,985 25 49 74 1997 4,783 9,000 13,783 65,404 131,613 197,017 401 14,144 14,545 269 401 670 Averages: 1985-92 2,285 7,218 9,502 19,363 27,874 47,237 3,368 40,857 44,225 671 3,477 4,147 1988-92 2,426 8,247 10,673 20,479 33,538 54,017 3,351 37,309 40,660 451 1,493 1,944 7128 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Routine Proceedings

Comparative Canadian and U.S. catches of Canadian-origin salmon from the Stikine River: 1985-1997 (data source is Canadian interception estimates: 1997; DFO, Whitehorse, Yukon) Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Averages: 1985-88 2,202 6,801 9,003 16,951 15,121 32,072 3,076 37,553 40,629 882 5,321 6,202 1989-92 2,368 7,634 10,002 21,776 40,627 62,403 3,660 44,162 47,821 459 1,633 2,092 1993-96 2,228 9,439 11,667 55,010 126,645 181,655 2,705 43,205 45,910 48 113 161

Year Chum Steelhead Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total 1985 536 3,833 4,369 240 NR 240 32,182 143,685 175,867 1986 307 1,111 1,418 194 NR 194 22,558 61,862 84,420 1987 459 2,012 2,471 219 NR 219 19,171 33,876 53,047 1988 733 1,663 2,396 261 NR 261 21,480 28,379 49,859 1989 674 2,062 2,736 127 NR 127 30,725 85,182 115,907 1990 499 1,365 1,864 199 NR 199 25,805 45,954 71,759 1991 208 1,001 1,209 71 NR 71 27,895 99,039 126,934 1992 231 1,176 1,407 132 NR 132 30,764 151,649 182,413 1993 395 1,262 1,657 67 NR 67 52,407 161,432 213,839 1994 173 396 569 84 NR 84 50,913 153,960 204,873 1995 263 574 837 270 NR 270 59,412 121,362 180,774 1996 232 462 694 183 NR 183 78,896 283,547 362,443 1997 222 336 558 33 NR 33 71,112 155,494 226,606 Averages: 1985-92 456 1,778 2,234 180 180 26,323 81,203 107,526 1988-92 469 1,453 1,922 158 158 27,334 82,041 109,375 1985-88 509 2,155 2,663 229 229 23,848 66,951 90,798 1989-92 403 1,401 1,804 132 132 28,797 95,456 124,253 1993-96 266 673 939 151 151 60,407 180,076 240,483 Note: (a) includes catches taken in traditional fisheries (excludes test and ESSR fisheries). (b) Canadian Excess Salmon to Spawning Requirements (ESSR) catches of sockeye (terminal harvests of salmon in excess to spawning requirements): 1993 1,752 1994 6,852 1995 10,740 1996 14,339 1997 2,393 (c) 1997 data are preliminary. (d) NR—not reported. (e) Pacific Salmon Treaty catch sharing arrangements for 1988 to 1992 provided for: a minimum Canadian catch based on Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of sockeye; maximum 4,000 coho; and bycatches of other salmon species. U.S. directed or undirected fisheries were based on estimated TACs. The discrepancy in catch shares has escalated due to expiry of catch sharing arrangements in 1992. (f) There is a rounding off process in the catch data program which accounts for discrepancies in totals. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7129

Routine Proceedings

Comparative Canadian and U.S. catches of Canadian-origin salmon from the Taku River: 1985-1997 (data source is Canadian interception estimates: 1997; DFO, White- horse, Yukon)

Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total 1985 830 2,211 3,041 14,411 85,258 99,669 1,792 100,494 102,286 3,373 477,716 481,089 1986 785 3,526 4,311 14,939 68,912 83,851 1,833 105,467 107,300 58 17,736 17,794 1987 627 2,714 3,341 13,650 60,917 74,567 5,712 144,611 150,323 6,250 405,517 411,767 1988 1,082 4,113 5,195 12,259 31,497 43,756 3,221 100,550 103,771 1,030 71,997 73,027 1989 1,401 4,573 5,974 18,598 72,193 90,791 3,022 141,962 144,984 695 655,988 656,683 1990 1,758 5,853 7,611 21,189 119,880 141,069 3,213 177,056 180,269 378 77,284 77,662 1991 1,677 4,953 6,630 25,217 116,364 141,581 3,435 310,154 313,589 296 384,149 384,445 1992 2,066 5,475 7,541 29,824 137,121 166,945 4,264 210,919 215,183 0 232,852 232,852 1993 2,144 6,509 8,653 33,357 155,247 188,604 3,041 266,212 269,253 16 227,927 227,943 1994 2,684 5,010 7,694 29,001 109,130 138,131 14,693 259,084 273,777 168 663,058 663,226 1995 2,147 4,437 6,584 32,711 103,675 136,386 13,738 162,045 175,783 2 56,986 56,988 1996 3,894 9,806 13,700 42,025 203,344 245,369 5,052 115,936 120,988 0 125,908 125,908 1997 3,335 6,932 10,267 24,595 78,624 103,219 2,999 97,139 100,138 0 0 0 Averages: 1985-88 831 3,141 3,972 13,815 61,646 75,461 3,140 112,781 115,920 2,678 243,242 245,919 1989-92 1,726 5,213 6,939 23,707 111,389 135,096 3,484 210,023 213,506 342 337,568 337,910 1993-96 2,717 6,440 9,158 34,274 142,849 177,122 9,131 200,820 209,951 47 268,470 268,516

Year Chum Steelhead Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total Canada U.S. Total 1985 136 84,178 84,314 32 NR 32 20,574 749,857 770,431 1986 110 72,204 72,314 48 NR 48 17,773 267,845 285,618 1987 2,270 93,814 96,084 223 NR 223 28,732 707,573 736,305 1988 733 62,398 63,131 100 NR 100 18,425 270,555 288,980 1989 42 27,193 27,235 50 NR 50 23,808 901,909 925,717 1990 12 48,124 48,136 42 NR 42 26,592 428,198 454,790 1991 2 56,050 56,052 46 NR 46 30,673 871,670 902,343 1992 7 84,514 84,521 119 NR 119 36,280 670,881 707,161 1993 15 106,239 106,254 24 NR 24 38,597 762,133 800,730 1994 18 89,356 89,374 233 NR 233 46,797 1,125,637 1,172,434 1995 1 33,029 33,030 209 NR 209 48,808 360,173 408,981 1996 0 30,339 30,339 98 NR 98 51,069 485,334 536,403 1997 3 68,695 68,698 183 NR 183 31,115 251,390 282,505 Averages: 1985-88 812 78,148 78,961 101 101 21,376 498,957 520,333 1989-92 16 53,971 53,986 64 64 29,338 718,164 747,503 1993-96 9 64,741 64,749 141 141 46,318 683,319 729,637

Note: (a) 1997 estimates are preliminary. 7130 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders

(b) NR—not reported. (c) Pacific Salmon Treaty catch sharing arrangements for 1988 to 1992 provided for: maximum Canadian catch of 18% of TAC for sockeye and maximum 3,000 coho; and bycatches of other salmon species. The discrepancy in catch shares has excalated due to expiry of catch sharing arrangements in 1992. (d) There is a rounding off process in the catch data program which accounts for discrepancies in totals.

Question No. 93—Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Question No. 21 is absolutely languishing on the order paper. Months and months have gone by. The clock continues to tick. The Can the Minister of Finance specify for each year starting in 1990: (a) how may requests for surplus refunds has the OSFI, Office of the Superintendant of Financial question remains outstanding. When might we expect the answer? Institutions, received from sponsors of terminated workplace pension plans in the federal jurisdiction; (b) what was the total amount requested; (c) how many requests Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I point out that as of today we did the OSFI approve each year; and (d) how much money was involved? have replied to almost 70% of the almost 1,000 petitions presented.

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Finan- With regard to the question the member is referring to—and I cial Institutions), Lib.): According to the Office of the Superin- know he has particularly Question No. 21 in mind—we are in the tendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI: range of a 75% response rate, which I do not think is bad. I assure the member we have been working specifically on Question No. 21 during the constituency break. I assure him that I Requests for Surplus Refunds Received and Approved by OSFI for Terminated Pension Plans(1) will be tabling the reply very soon. (a) (b) (c) (d) The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions then stand? Number of Total Amount Number of Total Amount Calendar Requests Requested Requests Approved(2) Some hon. members: Agreed. Year Received $ Approved $ 1990 5 1,437,614 6 482,200 ______1991 6 3,683,210 4 3,368,595 1992 6 4,563,029 3 1,483,130 GOVERNMENT ORDERS 1993 6 12,084,687 5 1,712,101 1994 7 21,623,692 6 12,345,155 [Translation] 1995 8 1,780,778 6 13,702,183 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998 1996 1 103,079 6 2,017,298 The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to 1997 0 0 2 112,344 implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on 1998 (to 0000February 24, 1998, as reported (with amendment) by the commit- April 21) tee, and of Group No. 1. (1) Based on information contained in OSFI records as of April 22, 1998. The Deputy Speaker: Because of the interruption for Oral (2) Includes surplus refunds to plan beneficiaries, if any; OSFI did not keep Question Period, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau has separate records on the allocation of surplus between plan sponsors and six minutes left to speak. beneficiaries. Note that requests are not necessarily approved in the same fiscal or calen- Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. dar year in which they are received. Speaker, in the January 1994 throne speech, the federal govern- ment, which was faced with an unprecedented deficit, committed to clarifying the role of the federal government with respect to the other levels of government in order to eliminate duplication and [Translation] overlap. Why not make better use of proven education structures within The Deputy Speaker: The questions as listed by the parliamen- the provinces rather than creating more? As Minister Landry told tary secretary have been answered. Are the remaining questions Le Devoir last February 25, Quebec ‘‘will again be penalized... by allowed to stand? endless discussions and mechanisms of all kinds.... This is not the [English] way a system that respects the various levels of government operates’’. Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Has the government forgotten that, in the February 1996 throne PC): Mr. Speaker, again reluctantly I rise of a point of order. speech, in response to the referendum, it made the promise to no May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7131

Business of the House longer make use of the federal government’s spending power to It is unacceptable that the millennium scholarships will be given create programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction? out not only according to need but also on the basis of merit. Linking the subsistence of disadvantaged students to their academ- Does the federal government not acknowledge all of Quebec’s ic performance is unconscionable. The scholarships fall short of the accomplishments in education over the past 30 years? expectations of student associations because assistance is not based solely on need. Quebec is a leader in the area of education in Canada. To the people of Quebec, education represents a vital tool for cultural, Even if the millennium fund focused its assistance on the most economic and social development. What is more, education is the needy students, the Government of Quebec also administers merit cornerstone of any society. scholarships. Regardless of the name given these scholarships, Quebec will no doubt most effectively manage the new money. Thanks to its lack of political logic, and the creation of the Allow me to quote Premier Bouchard in a letter to his Canadian millennium fund, the federal government has managed to create counterpart: ‘‘Quebec will not be told what approach to take with consensus in Quebec. All those consulted, who are involved in the respect to financial aid to students, an area that is under its education field, are opposed to Bill C-36. jurisdiction’’.

D (1520) In conclusion, the millennium scholarship has given rise to a veritable outcry of protest, not only from sovereignists, as the The federal government will have once again shown its complete Prime Minister of Canada had hoped, but also from all those with ignorance of the Quebec reality. It is not the first time a consensus any sort of interest in Quebec’s education system. is achieved in Quebec against any federal interference in education. With one voice all those involved in education in Quebec have We will recall that, in May 1991, in a motion passed in the told the federal government that while C-36 is good for Canada it is National Assembly, Liberal and PQ members unanimously con- not good for Quebec. demned the federal government’s unacceptable urge to interfere further in education. * * * [English] The Prime Minister of Canada is doing his best to and will go down in history as the first government leader to so bluntly and BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE obviously interfere in the provincial jurisdiction that is education. Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. However, the Government of Quebec has made itself quite clear: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place any additional funding for education must be directed to the between all parties and I believe you would find consent for the Government of Quebec, which will redistribute it according to its following order: own priorities. Any other form of funding will be considered as That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the conclusion of government interference. orders take place in the following order: all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of C-36. The Prime Minister will be known as the founding father of the the motion for third reading of C-19. millennium scholarships: a fine waste of public funds and a rather unoriginal way for the current government to send students in M-75. Quebec cheques with the Canadian maple leaf on them. the motion for second reading of C-247. and all questions to dispose of M-261. There is no logical and rational reason to create yet another D scholarship system in Canada. Instead, the government should (1525 ) improve the system already in place in Quebec. It seems obvious to The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous us that Ottawa’s only motivation for establishing the millennium consent that the deputy government whip may propose this motion scholarships is to raise its profile. to the House? In fact, the purpose of these scholarships is visibility at the Some hon. members: Agreed. expense of efficiency. The Prime Minister has said so himself. These scholarships run counter to Quebec’s practice of entitling all [Translation] students desiring to further their studies to financial assistance. Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I did not really grasp the procedure and what the hon. member proposed. We are debating According to their criteria, the millennium scholarships will help Bill C-36. Could it be repeated, please. only about a third of low and middle income students. In addition, they are only a medium term solution, as they will become The Deputy Speaker: I will repeat the motions moved by the available only in the year 2000. It will therefore be of absolutely no hon. member: ‘‘That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the assistance to those currently completing their studies with a conclusion of government orders take place in the following order: significant debt. all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of Bill C-36; the 7132 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders motion for third reading of Bill C-19; Motion M-75; the motion for federal and provincial governments, lenders, colleges and universi- second reading of Bill C-247; and all questions necessary to ties together to reach consensus on student assistance reform. dispose of Motion M-261.’’ The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development Is it clear to the hon. member? and the Status of Persons with Disabilities undertook an extensive study of the issue. It consulted Canadians across the country and Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. the report it tabled last December made 16 specific recommenda- tions for change. At its meeting last December the Prime Minister The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the and the premiers made a commitment to work together to reduce motion? student debt. Some hon. members: Agreed. As hon. members know, in response to these recommendations (Motion agreed to) and discussions the Minister of Finance outlined the Canadian opportunities strategy in the budget of last February, a strategy that directly reflects the sentiments and the directions offered by many * * * Canadians. [English] D (1530 ) BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998 It is a seven-part strategy that puts the following measures into The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to place: to help graduates manage growing debt; to give Canadians implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on access to the financing required to upgrade their skills throughout February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment) from the their careers; to help families pay for their children’s education; to committee; and of Group No. 1. help graduate and post-graduate students continue to develop their skills and carry out research that benefits the whole country; to help Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, young people make the transition from school to work; to help every Canadian needs and deserves an equal chance to live up to his connect Canadians to the information age technology; and to or her full potential. I am in favour of the legislation establishing greatly improve access to learning by helping students in financial the millennium scholarship foundation because it will help Cana- need cope with the increasing cost of education. dians reach their goals. In so doing it will also play a part in helping our country live up to its full potential. In the time remaining I would like to concentrate my remarks on the last point, in particular the Canada millennium scholarship No nation can rely solely on its resources in the ground for foundation. The endowment that the Canada millennium scholar- economic growth. In today’s global economy and in the growing ship foundation will manage is the largest single investment ever knowledge economy of the future the key to economic success is made by the federal government in support of access to post-secon- the development of our human resources. dary education for all Canadians.

Quite simply we need to have a highly skilled, highly adaptable I agree with what the Prime Minister said in the House when he and highly motivated workforce if we are to continue to prosper announced this initiative last fall. There can be no greater millen- into the next century and beyond. The new reality for every nium project for Canada and no better role for government than to Canadian is that getting and keeping a job in the growing knowl- help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of edge economy demands ever higher levels of learning. the next century. As we all know the result is that not everyone has the financial means to take advantage of the learning opportunities that are out The 10 year endowment of $2.5 billion will provide over there. It is certainly true that the Canada student loans program and 100,000 scholarships to low and middle income students every year provincial student programs have helped millions of young people for the next decade. The scholarships will be available to young over the years including myself. Indeed without these essential and old, to full time and part time students. Students in universities supports many thousands of low and middle income young people as well as students in community colleges, technology institutes would not have been able to participate at all. and other post-secondary education systems will all be eligible. That is over one million new scholarships. Even so, today far too many people are facing enormous student debt burden upon graduation. Too many others are simply not We believe that a million new scholarships devoted to equalizing going on to post-secondary institutions because the costs are just access to learning is a fitting way to commemorate the next too high. We all recognize that the problem has become progres- millennium, a millennium in which all societies will look more and sively worse and that there is a need to act. more to the knowledge, skills and creative intelligence of their people for growth and prosperity. Contrary to the assertions of Last November a national all stakeholders working session on some people, the Canada millennium scholarship foundation does Canada student loans brought students, teachers, administrators, not intrude into a provincial area of jurisdiction. Quite the opposite. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7133

Government Orders It will help more people benefit from the educational opportunities them a better chance at starting the next millennium with the skills provided by provincial governments. and knowledge they will need to become full and contributing members of this economy. Hon. members can understand our deep disappointment when the Government of Quebec chose to break off the discussions on Again, I believe that every Canadian deserves the chance to live the Canada millennium scholarships. Our government demon- up to his or her full potential. I believe that this legislation will help strated much flexibility during negotiations with the Government them do just that. I sincerely hope that all hon. members of the of Quebec to ensure the alignment of a new foundation with the House will give it their enthusiastic support. Quebec system.

There is nothing new in our desire to help people help them- Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, selves. Since Confederation the federal government has helped I am pleased to be here today to take part in the debate on the Group people improve their education. Following the second world war No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. for example, thousands of returning soldiers benefited from grants to help them upgrade their skills and rejoin the peacetime economy. I am sure Canadians will be pleased to know that once again we are being pushed to limit the debate on this important topic by the Today, in addition to the Canada student loans, several billion time allocation motion that the government has introduced to the dollars each year are transferred to the provincial governments in House. Many speakers who were planning to take part in this Canada health and social transfers to help fund post-secondary debate will now be prevented from doing so. education, social assistance and health care.

We believe as do most Canadians that all governments have a I was happy to speak on this bill at second reading. At that time role to play in providing everyone with an opportunity to improve the millennium scholarship foundation was one of the hottest themselves, an opportunity for a better life for themselves and for issues of the budget. It has now been three months since the federal their families. government announced its budget and the $2 billion legacy to our current Prime Minister, also known as the millennium scholarship If the Government of Quebec would accept the principle of the fund, is still a hotly debated issue particularly in the provinces. millennium scholarships for what it really is, namely an ad hoc and unique contribution to help young people access opportunities in From day one the government was criticized for entering into an the new economy, it would be proud to be associated with this area of provincial jurisdiction, especially by the province of initiative. Quebec. The government was strongly criticized not only by members of the official opposition but by parliament’s watchdog, The Quebec government can rest assured that the foundation will the auditor general, whose job is to keep an eye on the govern- be able to build on the existing needs assessment processes and ment’s questionable accounting methods. complement provincial efforts to provide accessible, affordable post-secondary education to all its citizens. I would like to spend some time on this issue because this is an The foundation will have nothing at all to do with determining important issue which needs to have some emphasis. As a member curricula, setting tuition levels or managing educational institu- of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I am well aware of tions. Those are questions for the provincial governments and the the work of the auditor general. As I have stated on several institutions themselves. That has been clear from the very begin- occasions not only in committee but here in this place as well, I ning. hold the Office of the Auditor General in the highest esteem for the integrity, perseverance and determination to see that value is As the Prime Minister has said in the House, we are satisfied that received from every dollar that the government spends. It is largely this bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the situation in a because of the work of the Office of the Auditor General that the reasonable manner. government has worked toward cleaning up its act in the spending of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. I am sorry to say there An independent foundation will manage the fund. It will not be is still a long way to go in this. run by government but by private citizens. Among other things, this fund will also facilitate a greater degree of student mobility, This government has shown Canadians all too frequently that if allowing students the opportunity to complete all or part of their given the opportunity it loves to tax Canadians to the very hilt studies in different parts of Canada. while providing them with useless programs having little if any tangible benefit. As I speak on this issue I am reminded of the D (1535 ) distribution of $15 million to $20 million worth of flags. I would like to know what tangible benefit that had to the economic With it we are marking a unique event in the history of our well-being of Canadians. Some of these programs do not provide country, a passage into the new millennium. At the same time we Canadians with good value for their money, something on which as are also improving the prospects of all Canadian students by giving a member of the public accounts committee, as a member of 7134 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders parliament and perhaps most of all, as a Canadian taxpayer I work provinces. Now that the federal government is continuing to to hold the government accountable. meddle in provincial affairs instead of restoring transfers, after the millennium fund is spent many students will not benefit from it. The auditor general has criticized the finance minister for his The provinces however will still be responsible for all these accounting practices in previous budgets and has gone so far as to students, even though they lack the money that should be theirs to offer a qualified opinion on last year’s budget. It is obvious by this fulfil this responsibility. qualified opinion that the government is not producing a transpar- ent picture of the nation’s finances. The year before, the auditor Cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces over the past few general also questioned the manner in which the government years were brutal and swift. That was money the provinces needed crafted its budget. and counted on to ensure that their people would receive adequate programming in areas such as health and education. We have Canadians need to know and have a right to know and have a clearly seen the effects of the federal government’s approach to clear picture of the financial situation of this government, how it balancing the books in the province of British Columbia. Services intends to spend the money and not have those numbers fudged by have been dramatically reduced due to the reduction of these moving figures from one year to another. federal payments. Motion No. 67 speaks specifically to the provinces being able to D (1540 ) opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and to enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that The finance minister has responded by saying that the govern- would have been spent in a particular province allowing the ment has to evolve and change as events change. However as the province to use these funds for their own purposes. This would help auditor general has reminded the government time and again, the the provinces make up for some of the lost funds from the cuts to finance minister does not have the liberty to make the rules up as he these transfer payments. goes along for his own political purposes. The federal government blatantly ignored standard budget guidelines and tried to brush off Before my time is finished, I would like to touch on several other legitimate criticism by changing the rules for its own political motions which touch on the accountability issues surrounding this purposes. initiative.

We have heard the same line of reasoning in the hepatitis C Motion No. 66 from the fifth political party, the Progressive debate that this government is doing what is best and right. We all Conservatives, would make the millennium scholarship foundation know how the general Canadian public feels about the govern- subject to the Access to Information Act. This would be a great ment’s idea of what is best and right in the hepatitis C debate. Here idea. also in the budget what is best and right falls far short of the standards set up in the general rules of accounting. Canadians demand that the government provide them with value for their money. Having federal departments and programs subject Group No. 1 deals largely with the millennium scholarship fund. to Canadians having access to information explaining how each I am happy to support many of the amendments in this group. I department spends its tax dollars in essence makes it more would like to spend some of my time talking about the amendments accountable to the public. proposed. I would like to comment on several of the amendments put forth The motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois delete all the by the Progressive Conservative Party which deal with the appoint- clauses which establish the millennium scholarship foundation. As ment of an auditor for the foundation. Motion No. 56 would have I mentioned earlier, those in Quebec have made it perfectly clear to the auditor general be that auditor of the foundation, something the federal government that they do not want the federal govern- which I wholeheartedly support. ment intruding in matters of provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec government is also worried that this will detrimentally affect its D (1545 ) system of grants and loans. I can sympathize with Quebec’s complaint. As I mentioned earlier, the office of the auditor general has done a splendid job in evaluating how various departments and programs I can also assure the government that there is a growing chorus operate and, in cases where value for money is not achieved, the of dissatisfaction from British Columbians. This growing chorus office of the auditor general can present that program or depart- must not be ignored. ment with several options on how to improve its operations. That evaluation would surely benefit the operation and spending of the Every province has experienced similar problems. As the gov- millennium scholarship foundation. ernment has waged its war on the deficit, it did not cut out inefficiencies in many government departments and eliminate Government Motions Nos. 55, 57 and 58 are a different story. needless grants and programs; rather it cut transfer payments to the They give all the power of appointing and terminating the auditor May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7135

Government Orders of the foundation to the government. Motion No. 55 allows the Some 14 groups and individuals from the education community government to appoint the auditor of the foundation. came to express their disagreement with the Prime Minister’s idea.

The difficulties we have with Bill C-36 are headlined in the last To put in perspective the outcry caused by this Liberal initiative, Hill Times. The headline reads ‘‘The decline of the Canadian it is interesting to note that 41% of the witnesses who appeared Parliament and the escalating deterioration of public information before the standing parliamentary committee to express their views and debate in Canada’s Parliament’’. This is a serious issue that on the millennium scholarships were from Quebec. cuts through this debate and the bill that is presented here.

D (1550) [Translation]

And yet, the federal government continues to turn a deaf ear and Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I is not proposing any amendments to Bill C-36. The comments am pleased to join my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have spoken made by those witnesses from Quebec were very clear to those who on Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget understand French, one of the two official languages of this great tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998. country that is Canada.

Today, we are primarily dealing with the motions relating to the For example, the Coalition des ex-leaders étudiants québécois millennium scholarships. More than 40 of these motions were eloquently said that with its millennium scholarships, the federal tabled by the hon. member for Québec and their overall objective is government is proving its ignorance and its incompetence in the to eliminate the millennium scholarship foundation from Bill C-36. area of education.

In so doing, the Bloc Quebecois is echoing the consensus As for the president of the Fédération des cégeps, he said just as reached among all the Quebec stakeholders who appeared before eloquently that Bill C-36 does not take into account what Quebec the Standing Committee on Finance and who unanimously con- has accomplished over the last 30 years in the area of financial demned these scholarships and asked for withdrawal with full assistance to students. compensation. One has to wonder if the government that concocted these It is rather difficult to understand the policies of this govern- infamous scholarships lives on the same planet as we do. How ment. After adopting a resolution recognizing the distinct character many times, since Quebec joined the federation, have Quebeckers of Quebec society, the Chrétien government is now trying to get of all parties condemned duplication and overlap between federal involved in education, which is a vital component in the develop- and provincial programs? Today, with the millennium scholarships, ment of a people. the federal government is trying once again to invade Quebec’s education system by competing directly with the province’s loans As for us in the Bloc Quebecois, we know that the flexibility of and scholarships program. Has the federal government even looked Canadian federalism is nothing but a myth and that what the at the needs of Quebeckers in this area? Certainly not. government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other hand. After making drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces and The millennium scholarships show the true face of federalism as threatening the balance in Quebec’s education system, the federal a centralizing, if not levelling, force. The Chrétien government government comes up with a wall to wall solution that simply does really does not understand anything about Quebeckers’ aspirations. not suit Quebec.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows In 1997 the task force on funding for Quebec universities she must refer to members by using their titles, not their names. I concluded that previous cuts were the main reason for the increase hope she will comply with the standing orders in this regard. The in the number of students per classroom and in lecturers’ workload hon. member for Jonquière. and for the decrease in the number of teaching assistants. These choices led to a decrease in the overall supervision of students, which is directly related to the quality of education. Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Liberal members from Quebec either do not have the Prime Minister’s attention or are insensitive The opinion of Mrs. Boileau, of the Fédération nationale des to their constituents’ needs. enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec, a member of the CSN, is totally in sync with the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois to opt Need I remind my colleagues opposite that all the witnesses out of part I of Bill C-36. She said that the only way out is for the from Quebec who appeared before the Standing Committee on federal government to give back to the provinces what it has cut Finance were in favour of a withdrawal with full compensation? from the transfers, not to hand out millennium scholarships. 7136 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders As several people said before, Quebec has proven its ability in bowl of cherries. They have their heads in the clouds. They have the loans and scholarships area. The way it manages its program is no idea of the fiscal realities. quite innovative. More needs to be done in order to ensure equal access to university studies for young Quebeckers. However, the This bill shows that for the first time in over 40 years we have a implementation of a parallel system will not help to improve the government that is fiscally responsible. We have a government that system we now have in Quebec, especially since eligibility for the has balanced the books in spite of the ranting from the left. We millennium scholarships will be based on an elitist approach. have a government that has eliminated the deficit and has finally put this country on the route to financial prosperity. By contrast, Quebec’s loans and scholarships program focuses on the needs of students, to promote greater accessibility and equal opportunities. One of the things that will help to build a prosperous Canada is access to education. Yet I hear members talk against greater access to education. We need to enhance our current system, not create more duplication that would only further distort the Quebec loans and scholarships program. I therefore urge my colleagues in this House I know about opposition politics. I spent five years opposing an to listen to the 1.2 million Quebecers who, through their associa- NDP government in Ontario. I understand that it is fundamentally tions, expressed their views on the millennium scholarships to the the opposition’s job to be negative. It is difficult to get up every Standing Committee on Finance. morning, to look in the mirror and to ask ‘‘How can I be negative today?’’ But they do it. It is their job. Although I did hear the member for Burnaby—Douglas congratulate our fisheries minister Just like them, and on their behalf, we ask members for nothing in question period today for his latest decision on coho salmon. It less than the right to opt out with full financial compensation, so took a lot of courage for him to do that and I congratulate the that we can spend the money according to the needs and realities of member for Burnaby—Douglas for his courage to stand and make a Quebec. positive statement. In the one year I have been in this place that is the first time I have heard an opposition member make a positive, [English] constructive statement about something.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I They cannot tell me that every bill and policy that this govern- am pleased to rise today to discuss this bill which will actually ment or any government proposes is without merit. It is simply not implement some of the items that were announced in the budget. possible.

D (1555 ) An hon. member: The millennium fund.

I listened to members opposite earlier today, in particular those Mr. Steve Mahoney: They go on about the millennium fund. of the Reform Party, as they ranted about the fact that the Should it come as a surprise? Let us take a look at our electoral government passed time allocation to get some of these items system. through. Yet time allocation has been used three months almost to the day after the budget was introduced. The budget was brought down by our finance minister on February 24. Here we are on May The Canadian electorate sent a majority government here. They 25 dealing with this bill that will implement the policies that were said ‘‘Fundamentally we like what you stand for. We like the announced. proposals on how the budget will be balanced and on how the surplus will be dealt with. We think it makes sense’’. They sent us here. So we introduced a budget. We introduced a historic millen- Members opposite shake their heads as if they do not understand. nium scholarship fund of $2.5 billion to help young people. On Why do they think we have to bring in time allocation? This bill is average it will mean $3,000 per year per student. It will not only be part of the government’s policy and program. If they had their way based on merit, it will be based on need. they would simply delay and obstruct. They would simply be negative. I do not hear anything positive coming from over there. We recognized that these young people needed help so we introduced measures to help with debt repayment which are I do not understand what members opposite have against a unprecedented. There will be tax relief for interest on all student scholarship fund being established to help students go to school. loans. Why would you be opposed to that? It is unbelievable. It is Explain that to me. What do they have against students and higher unthinkable. It is outrageous. Phone your constituents. Members of education? What do they have against allowing all Canadians to the Reform Party always say they are to vote this way unless their have continuing education? constituents call and tell them to vote a different way. Phone them on this one. I think you will find by and large, they will support it. The NDP members chirping from left wing would wipe out all Check with them. Maybe just maybe, you might change your tuition. They would say that everything is free, that life is just a position. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7137

Government Orders

D (1600 ) Members opposite really should take a serious look at the future and the need to help our young people increase their education.

Interest relief extended to more graduates. We are not talking An hon. member: We are doing it. about holus-bolus elimination of all tuition as the NDP in its somewhat myopic and naive view of the world would do. ‘‘Just Mr. Steve Mahoney: You are doing it because you want to give wipe out the cost. Taxpayers will take care of everything. There is it away in the NDP. They want to jack up the prices, cut the taxes, nothing to worry about. It is okay’’. In the world of socialism, they help the wealthy. That is all they want. They are absolutely off are totally out to lunch on that. base.

This is balanced. This is good government policy. It is receipt- Then on the other extreme, an extended repayment period for able and it is going to help build a great dynamic country for your those who need it. Imagine that the Reform Party is against that. Of children and mine. course the Reform Party’s solution and the right wing solution to all of this is simply to reduce taxes. They have no concern Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank whatsoever for those young people who are struggling through you for rescuing the member opposite who, near as I can tell, did school whose last concern is how much they are paying in taxes. not take a breath for almost 10 minutes. It was an impressive sight. Their concern is how they can afford their post-secondary educa- It is like the old saying when a preacher dropped his notes and tion. someone said when you are unsure of what you are saying, just speak louder and maybe someone will believe it. I think the hon. member opposite was probably a case in point. Lots of volume, lots We believe very strongly that the millennium scholarship fund of rhetoric, no facts and I am not sure he is even convinced of his will not solve all the problems but it will sure go a long way toward position. helping people have better access, more affordable access to post-secondary education. D (1605 )

There are lots of examples in the world. The Republic of Ireland On the budget implementation act it is a shame we cannot is one of the most dynamic successful economies in Europe with question one another during this period. It would be so much fun to much of it coming I would admit from EU financing. Why are debate with a member who relies so much on rhetoric and so little people interested in investing in the Republic of Ireland? It is not on facts. only because of the historic peace agreement but they have been doing it for years in the Republic of Ireland because of the quality For example, why has the bill taken so long to come to the House of the training and the education of the young people in that of Commons? And why now is there time allocation? Every single country. It actually is a model we should look at. bill that is brought into the House is brought in by the government as it sees fit. If it does not want to bring the bill in until June, then it will run shy of time before the summer holidays. It has had three It is interesting to hear members from the Bloc stand up and say months in which to run the bill, every day since the budget that we are interfering in provincial jurisdiction. They are the same announcement if it had wanted to. people who stand up and whine and complain because the govern- ment will not give them more money, will not give them more This bill and the budget have been botched in several ways right authority, will not give them more autonomy, will not allow them from the word go. On the grouping we are talking about on the to separate and destroy this country. They got that right. We are not millennium fund the minister appointed the person in charge of the going to let them do that. millennium fund before the legislation was passed in the House of Commons.

What this plan does is it allows for co-operation with the Imagine something this big. As the member opposite has said, provincial governments. It allows for co-operation. It actually this thing is practically as big as sliced bread. It is almost as allows for money from the $2.5 billion to be invested and to grow miraculous as getting the milk inside the Caramilk bar. It is so huge and the interest to be used. It allows for endowments to come from it is practically a memorial fund for the Prime Minister in years to the private sector and that can increase the amount of money come. It is such a big thing you would think the legislation would available. There would be a lot of interest in that. come before the House to be debated. Once it was debated the minister would move ahead and enact the legislation as it was passed. But no, the Minister of Finance chose to appoint the person I think of the agreements the University of Waterloo has entered in charge of the millennium fund before parliament had a look at it. into in the Kitchener—Waterloo community. Members opposite should look at how the university community works well with the Reform raised that in the House. We have this funny little quirk private sector. Why? Because it has an interest. It wants to turn out on this side of the House. We think that perhaps democracy in good quality graduates. parliament should have a say in things, not just ministerial 7138 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders departments. The member set an alarming trend on behalf of the It has long been my belief and the belief of the Reform Party that government and an alarming tendency to ignore parliament to what taxation means at the federal level is the government takes legislatively put the cart before the horse. That was the first our money, deducts 50% for handling and then gives it back to us in mistake on this. services we never asked for and it generally goes to the people who did not deserve it or want it to begin with. But the government makes sure that everyone is taxed. It is almost biblical in nature in The second mistake is in the budget itself in its entirety. The that all must go to be taxed. It has been going on for a long time. focus of the budget was that the government could probably The Liberal government has perfected it. The Liberals never met a continue to tax Canadians at this rate. Canadians are long suffering taxpayer they did not like. They make sure that taxpayers are well and fairly patient. They are not prone to dementia. Perhaps the fleeced so that they feel as lucky as any other Canadian I guess government could continue to tax Canadians at a rate that would because they are treated equally that way. make most sane people cringe and business people cry and they will just put up with it. That is unfortunate because dollars left in the hands of people in the community, in the hands of homemakers, in the hands of That is exactly what happened. The budget continued the time business people and students now and in the future are dollars that honoured tradition of Liberal parliamentarians that the only good are more likely to be well spent than when the government gets its taxpayer is a well taxed taxpayer. With this bill we continue to have sticky little fingers on it. the highest personal income taxes in the G-7. In a previous speech about the tax system in Canada I mentioned Today during question period there was a little bit of a kerfuffle the long chain of books that the tax collector, the hon. Minister of and a point of order to straighten out the facts by the Deputy Prime Finance has lying out behind him, the long catalogue of thousands Minister who was trying to decide whether Italy was the fifth of pages of tax laws, income tax increments and the broken biggest economy in the world and Canada was seventh, or was it promises of Christmas past, present and future. It kind of streams the other way around. What he did not get into regardless of which out behind him like a dead weight on the economy and forever way it was, and of course Canada is the seventh, is that we have the must be pulled around like a chain while saying ‘‘Woe is me and distinction of being number one when it comes to personal tax woe is you because this thing is going to drag us down’’. levels in the G-7. We get taxed higher than anybody else, including Italy and the Americans. That side of the House just cannot seem to Imagine if some of the tax burden was relieved from people. understand that it affects people’s business decisions. Imagine if some of that weight was taken off their shoulders. Imagine as we discuss this millennium fund if students had the prospect that as they earned money they would be able to keep I just heard talk a minute ago about Ireland and some other more of it. bright spots in the world for investment. Business people look at the education levels. They look at the political stability. They look at lots of things. One of the factors they also look at is the tax rate Canadians do not have to make a lot of money to start paying a in the economy they are going to build their business in. lot of taxes in this country. I met with someone on Sunday who goes to the same church as I do. This fellow is in his mid-fifties, has been on and off social assistance and has held down a steady You only have to come out to British Columbia. Even within a job for the last couple of years. He is working at a machine shop small jurisdiction like Canada we can see with a high tax rate like doing clean up and basic chores around the place. He makes that in British Columbia, which is a provincial problem, that the $17,000 a year which is his total income. He said ‘‘What is it about people in British Columbia are voting with their feet and are our tax system that I have to send $3,000 a year to Ottawa? What moving to Alberta to start up new businesses there. I can tell a gives in a system that taxes me, a $17,000 a year guy, and asks me litany of sad business stories of people from my riding, including to send money to Ottawa so they can take it, deduct 50% for people in the farming community who have given up on the high handling and give it out to other people who get the services and taxes in British Columbia and have moved to Alberta where there are just a selected few?’’ I did not have an answer for him. are the lowest taxes overall in Canada. There is no PST and Alberta has the lowest income taxes. We could point out the following. On the millennium fund, who does not want to see our children educated? My goodness sake, I have four of them at college age. I would love to see them all D (1610 ) educated with somebody else’s tax dollars.

Taxes were botched right from the start. The attitude was that Why is it this millennium fund is going to affect 7 out of 100 there was no tax relief needed for Canadians because after all, they students? And this is going to turn the world on its ear. A student can take it. They have not revolted. There is no rioting in the who happens to be one of the seven blessed, a student who happens streets, so let them get by on what they are getting by on and we to be chosen will be a happy camper. But for the other 93 students, will just continue to spend the money. what are their prospects? Their prospects are to continue to pay May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7139

Government Orders GST, continue to pay income tax, continue to pay road taxes, Quebec’s uniqueness or distinctiveness yet again. It is to be tariffs, fees, customs duties, hidden user fees. Those students will expected that the Calgary declaration will not change much either. continue to pay all of that and the government will take their money and give it to the 7 out of the 100 who will receive a benefit. Indeed, as long as the government introduces legislation such as The other 93 will pay and the 7 will receive a benefit. Bill C-36, which heaps scorn on something that is central to what Quebec represents, this will only be a further gesture, somewhat I do not think that is the way it should be. There would be a lot like what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did in 1982 with the constitution in more students with a lot more smiles on their faces, 93 at least, an attempt, which succeeded, to reduce the powers of Quebec’s saying ‘‘Thank you, Mr. Minister, for reducing my taxes. Thank national assembly in the area of education. It is since the Constitu- you for reducing my debt load. Thank you for giving me some tion Act of 1982 was passed that we have experienced so many prospect for hope for the future’’. constitutional problems in Canada. Since 1982, we have had a great number of commissions and some referendums in Canada to talk about national unity, and English Canada did not learn its lesson. D (1615 ) The government comes back, once again, with Bill C-36, which I think that is the way we could get general support for any kind is a small copy, so to speak, of the bad gesture made by Mr. of millennium fund or scholarship fund because that would benefit Trudeau at the time. However, the current Prime Minister probably all Canadians equally. wants to make the same kind of gesture, that is compromise the integrity of Quebec’s powers in the area of education. In fact, this is what is being done. [Translation]

D (1620) Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many members spoke to Bill C-36, a bill aimed at setting up a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund to help students. No one is against better education in Canada. We heard the hogwash of Liberal members who told the House that a stand against Bill C-36 is a stand against better education. Naturally, that A lot has been said about this bill. As far as I am concerned it is sheer nonsense. clearly shows that Canada is a failure as a country because, with Bill C-36, the government is trying once again to interfere in education, which comes under Quebec’s jurisdiction. We want students to benefit from this $2.5 billion. Of course we do, but we would rather have the funds paid directly to the provinces, which would administer them. Our loans and grants Canada’s history proves that education is critical to Quebec’s system in Quebec is one of the best if not the best system in Canada survival. It is at the heart of Quebec’s plan for the future. If Canada today. The debt load of students in Quebec is one of the smallest in had learned to respect Quebec, the federal government would not the country. be pushing pieces of legislation such as Bill C-36. Since Duplessis and Lesage, Quebec premiers have been fighting to preserve the We do not need another federally appointed agency to come to integrity of Quebec’s jurisdiction over education. It is essential that solve problems we do not have in Quebec. We want Quebec to get Canada recognize the importance of education for Quebec. back its share of the $2.5 billion, but not this way, not funds managed by individuals appointed by the Prime Minister, no doubt We know that throughout history one of the ways Canada has friends of the party, 12 directors who will sit in private, behind been trying to assimilate francophones has been to attack the closed doors, manage the funds and distribute them as they see fit, education system. This is what every province outside Quebec has without being accountable in any way. done. They challenged the use and teaching of French, thus speeding up assimilation. This is one of the reasons why today the Basically, the federal government will be putting money in the assimilation rate is 40% in Ontario and up to 70 % in the western hands of a private agency that will not be accountable to elected provinces. representatives. That is contrary to democratic principles. After all, why appoint 12 commissioners or board members to manage these As a matter of fact, just out of respect for Quebec, proposed funds when each province in Canada already has a ministry of legislation like Bill C-36, which interferes in a field as important to education managing education funds? Quebec’s future as education, should not even be introduced. One can see, once again, from this bill, that motions that are moved in Not only does this bill dismiss the existing system in Quebec, the House to recognize Quebec’s distinctiveness are not respected. but it shows once again that Canada does not understand a thing A motion was moved shortly after the last referendum to have about the problems in Quebec and Canada. Once again, the Quebec’s distinctiveness recognized and it was passed in the Constitution is flouted. We know full well that this private agency House. But the government introduced Bill C-36, which ignores appointed by the Liberal government will be duplicating services 7140 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders currently provided by the ministry of education in Quebec and the Government of Canada are clear and prepared in a manner consis- other provinces. This is a blatant case of duplication, which entails tent with normal accounting practices and that they do not contain extra costs of course. misleading information.

Take for example the millennium office to be set up in Ottawa in The Minister of Finance has unilaterally decided to change the preparation for the year 2000 celebrations. It is estimated that the accounting policies of the Government of Canada to allow him to administration costs for managing the $166 million earmarked for make a charge when he decides to make an announcement regard- celebrating Canada and the millennium in the year 2000 will ing a new program, and in this particular case $2.5 billion for the amount to 10% of the total budget. millennium scholarship fund.

What does this mean, with respect to the $2.5 billion budget for the millennium scholarships? Does it mean that $250 million will That means that we have taken $2.5 billion out of the books for be spent on managing these scholarships and not on those who the year ending March 31, 1998 and have set the money aside. We should benefit from it, the students? Does it mean that new jobs have not spent the money. We have not even set it aside at this point will be created for the friends of the Liberal government? Are we in time. But the Minister of Finance has made this expenditure or creating a $250 million slush fund for the friends of the govern- charge on the financial statements with the idea that after the turn ment? of the millennium, which is closer to the next election, the government is going to have $2.5 billion to spread around to young people in our country who will benefit by having assistance with We have the right to wonder, because there is no real need for tuition and education expenses. these millennium scholarships. They will not necessarily help the students, because if we really wanted to help our students, we would give the money directly to the provinces, which would be a We Reformers have never had a problem helping kids to get their good thing. It would reduce the administration costs. education, but we do have a problem with this sleight of hand type of accounting that is being proposed by the Minister of Finance and Who benefits from these millennium scholarships? It is pretty being condemned by the Auditor General of Canada who says this obvious that the Prime Minister of Canada is trying to create cannot be the way. something to be remembered by, and in a rather arrogant way, too. I think that for the second time in a row the Minister of Finance D (1625) should listen to the auditor general, rather than thumbing his nose at the auditor general, because we need to have integrity in our This scholarships program is to remind Canadians how much he financial statements. We need to have integrity in our government. cares about our youth, when, in fact, his primary goal is only to Surely, if there is no integrity in the financial statements being give his Liberal government more visibility at a very high cost. prepared by the government, then the government loses its integri- ty, and that is not in anybody’s best interest. Bill C-36 is another fine illustration of the fact that Canada is a failure. I hope the Minister of Finance will take the auditor general’s serious criticisms to heart, that he will recognize the error of his [English] ways and will ensure that our financial statements are prepared in a manner that is acceptable to the Auditor General of Canada. That Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am way not only Canadians but international investors can have faith pleased to rise to speak to Bill-36, the Budget Implementation Act, in our financial statements. which is a culmination of the Minister of Finance’s budget that he tabled back in February. While we have a balanced budget, we must remember that we still have a debt of almost $600 billion, which is $20,000 for every There are a couple of issues about the budget which I would like man, woman and child in Canada. That debt is being funded and to discuss. Number one, of course, is that the minister announced a financed by overseas investors, bankers and so on who look at our balanced budget. However, there was actually a surplus of $2.5 financial statement and if they find that it is qualified by the auditor billion, because the minister charged $2.5 billion to this fiscal year general then we may end up having to pay higher interest rates on to set up his millennium scholarship fund. that debt. That is also not to anybody’s benefit.

I take exception to the way he has been doing his accounting. D (1630 ) The auditor general pointed out the previous year that the finance minister had made an $800 million charge for an expenditure that had not been made. I would have thought the Minister of Finance I have to laud the government for achieving a balanced budget. would have listened to the Auditor General of Canada who is the With prodding by the Reform Party it has finally got itself there. watchdog for all Canadians. He ensures that the books of the We take exception to the fact, however, that it got there by May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7141

Government Orders increasing revenues from taxation rather than by cutting expendi- dress in 19th century Istanbul. I wonder what benefit that is to tures and bringing the government down to a more appropriate size. Canadians.

D (1635 ) The employment insurance fund now has a surplus of almost $20 billion, which is far in excess of any surplus it has ever had before. It is ten times larger than any surplus it ever had before. The The auditor general pointed out that in one of our embassies we government has taxed employment and jobs to balance the budget had spent $3,500 a month to store furniture, but when we looked at rather than cut the size of government. Taxing jobs seems to be a the furniture being stored we found it was only worth $1,000. We backward way of trying to achieve economic growth so that the have idiotic expenditures right across government. We have waste, government can get its finances in order while everybody else has mismanagement and incompetence in many areas. It requires accountability. It requires to be rooted out, and that is what the to pay through the nose and find out that their personal budgets are government has failed to do. being squeezed to pay for extra taxes to the government. When we next see a Budget Implementation Act for which the That tax revenue comes with a potential price. We have now had government is asking the approval of the House to implement the seven years of economic expansion. We know economic expan- recommendations of the Minister of Finance, I would find it very sions come to an end. When that happens, government expendi- difficult to do so based on the fact that they have not put their own tures go up by increased unemployment insurance premiums, fiscal house in order. reduced taxation revenues, additional welfare costs and all other government costs. Since we have relied on increased revenues to [Translation] balance the budget, we run the risk of slipping back into a deficit if economic activity slows down. The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlotte, Last weekend the Minister of Finance was in Kananaskis, hepatitis C; the hon. member for Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscoua- Alberta, to enjoy the fine scenery and accommodation of my part of ta—Les Basques, employment insurance reform. the world. He was at the APEC conference, the Asia Pacific Economic Council, dealing with economic issues in the far east. Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is Things are not as rosy over there as perhaps they could be or even unfortunate, but I am not delighted to rise today in this House to should be. speak to Bill C-36.

It implements certain provisions in the latest budget of the We are glad to see the resignation of President Suharto. However Minister of Finance including the Canada Millennium Scholarship we have some doubts about his successor who may follow in the Foundation. I will return to this a little later in my speech. same vein. There is an economic crisis there that is already impacting on the province of British Columbia. Alan Greenspan, Perhaps you would allow me right off to put all the nonsense in the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, said over the weekend the latest budget into perspective. The government opposite is that the impact of the economic slowdown in Asia could have a continuously heaping praise on the Minister of Finance for his small but not negligible impact on North American economies. work in balancing the budget.

I read in the Financial Post today that the Bank of Tokyo Let us get things clear from the start. There is no question of Mitsubishi reported a loss of $10 billion. When banks start to lose congratulating a government so irresponsible about the job it has to $10 billion we should begin to take a look at what is going on in do as to have others do it, namely the provinces. This, in my financial markets. Therefore I point out to the Minister of Finance opinion and that of the Bloc, makes the entire budget operation and to all Liberals that although they may have a balanced budget totally unacceptable. The federal government achieved its zero today, it may not be as rosy as it could be or should be if they had deficit by scandalously dumping its financial obligations and taken this opportune time to cut government when the economy responsibilities into the yards of the provinces. was chugging along quite nicely. When the economy turns down- ward is no time to squeeze Canadians with fewer and fewer To eliminate its deficit, the Liberal government has cut annually, services. since 1994, $7.2 billion in transfers to the provinces, which represents 52% of all the federal government’s spending cuts. In its two terms, the government opposite will literally have chopped $42 The government should be very cautious and careful about billion in social transfer payments to the provinces. spending any money it has or any surpluses it has. It should still be vigorous in its efforts to root out waste. I publish a waste report In 1995, the federal government promised, through its finance periodically. I brought one out last week with all the different minister, to cut departmental expenditures by 19% over three years. grants. For example, we gave some money to somebody to study Once again, it did not do its homework, since it cut only 9%, 7142 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders proving yet again that nearly all efforts to improve government to the present rate of $2.70, the planned drop to $2.60 by the year finances came from elsewhere. 2000, or a mere 10 cents, will have no significant impact on job creation. What this year’s budget neglects to say, and the public must be aware of this, is that there will be an additional $30 billion in cuts In spite of the unprecedented room to manoeuvre it has in the by 2003 to the health, education and social assistance sectors. current budget, the government opposite chose to do nothing to stimulate job creation. No tax reform geared to job creation, no To give an idea of the size of the cuts, for Quebec alone, between special budget measure to improve the fate of thousands of 1993 and 2003, a cumulative total of $13 billion will be cut from unemployed Quebeckers and Canadians. the budget for transfers to Quebec. It is not for nothing that the Quebec minister of state for the economy and finance, Bernard In short, when it comes to job creation this budget is a failure. Landry, told the federal government that its federalism was ‘‘preda- And yet the unemployment rate is stuck at around 9%. tory and abusive’’. I will add ‘‘irresponsible, centralizing and creating poverty’’ to that. Instead of creating jobs, the government prefers to create new programs resulting in more duplication and interference in areas of If we examine the effects of these cuts in the daily lives of people provincial jurisdiction, such as the Canada Millennium Scholarship in Quebec and Canada, we will see they are totally devastating. We Foundation, and keeps on doing what it knows best, namely how to must keep in mind that, when the Liberals took office in 1993, 61% spend somebody else’s money. of the unemployed were eligible for employment insurance bene- fits. Now, five years later, fewer than 40% of them are. A case in point is the hasty purchase of submarines to the tune of $750 million, a real bargain. After cutting billions of dollars from The latest employment insurance report states in black and white social transfer in the areas of health, education and welfare, the that young workers are the age group most affected by this drop in federal government is investing in youth and job creation by eligibility. purchasing armament. These are the real priorities of this govern- ment.

D (1640) Imagine what we could do with the $750 million it sunk into ships. I am asking the members opposite: Why not invest this But what is most objectionable about the employment insurance money to feed the 1.4 million poor children we have in Canada? situation is the surplus accumulated in the fund, which is up to about $14 billion at this point. It is expected to hit $25 billion by the year 2000. Imagine what could be done with all that dormant This is one child out of five. Imagine all this money to help the money. five million Canadians who are living below the poverty line, which is 17.4% of this country’s population. These are the priori- ties of the government across the way. Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been shouting itself hoarse about the budget cuts being made at the expense of the disadvan- taged in our society, and here is proof of it. I would describe these Another reason people in Quebec and Canada have been getting budget practices as fraudulent and a real theft. poorer since this government came to power is probably the $30 billion more they have to pay in taxes to the federal government. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore attuned to the problems of the population, unlike the government over there, which keeps its head In order to help stop this hemorrhage, the Bloc Quebecois asked buried in the sand. Proof of this is the number of occasions we have the finance minister and other ministers to stop creating new begged the federal government to stop using the employment programs. But of course, he did not listen and set up new programs insurance fund to balance its books. The Bloc has always main- including the millennium scholarships, a cornerstone of Bill C-36. tained that these funds are there to support the unemployed and to This $2.5 billion fund, which will only come into force in the year help get them back into the work force. 2000, is an unprecedented and blatant intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, education. In addition, the Bloc Quebecois, with the backing of the labour movement, businessmen and the general public, has fought D (1645) constantly to get the federal government to substantially cut workers’ and employers’ EI contribution rates, which are currently The Prime Minister of Canada knows very well that, for over 30 far too high and hamper job creation. years, we have had in Quebec the most comprehensive loans and scholarships plan in Canada. The Bloc Quebecois has picked up on the signals coming from the public by proposing concrete and practical measures including Federalists, sovereignists and the education circles in Quebec a $3 billion overall reduction in contributions, which represents an have voiced strong opposition to this federal visibility campaign. additional cut of about 35 cents in the contribution rate. Compared This program does not in any way meet the needs of Quebec and May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7143

Government Orders its quite distinct education system. That is why Quebec rejects this I came to this place expecting frustration as a member, knowing program and wants to opt out with full financial compensation. this parliamentary system is dysfunctional, knowing the way it has been abused by successive governments, that serious substantive debate and deliberation on legislation of this nature happens all too This is not a whimsical demand. It is part of a rational effort rarely. Even my low expectations as a close observer of this place aimed specifically at meeting the immediate needs of the education and a keen observer of parliamentary history have not been met. system in Quebec and compensating for the $10 billion in federal My low expectations for democratic deliberation have been ex- cuts to transfers for education, with Quebec’s share of these cuts ceeded by the government’s autocratic abuse of the sledge hammer amounting to $3 billion between 1993 and 2003. of debate known as time allocation and closure.

This is outright hypocrisy. But students and the general public in Quebec will not be fooled. They know very well that these D (1650 ) scholarships are a blatant effort to win the support of students in Quebec and in Canada. But sooner or later, the government will pay for these serious mistakes. Quebekers will understand once and for I turn my comments to the substance of the bill. The part we are all that the only way out of this federal quagmire is Quebec dealing with today deals with the establishment of the Canada sovereignty. millennium scholarship foundation. It is a quaint convention in democratic countries such as Canada that governments seek con- [English] sent from the voters in an election before they embark on major new program initiatives. That is what the concept of a democratic mandate is all about. Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-36. When I review the election literature distributed by candidates of the Liberal Party in the federal election conducted a year ago I fail I begin by expressing my regret that debate on this bill has been to find any mention of the Canada millennium scholarship founda- limited by the government’s time allocation motion. I understand tion. There are all the usual bromides in that election literature this is the fourth time in this parliament alone that closure or time about how the government is committed the future of young allocation has been implemented. It was done on Bill C-2 regarding people, to education and so forth, but nowhere did I find this the Canada pension plan, on Bill C-4 with respect to the Canadian commitment to spend billions of tax dollars which would otherwise Wheat Board, on Bill C-19, the Canadian Labour Code amend- be used for tax relief and debt reduction on what amounts to a huge ments which we dealt with before parliament broke, and now twice political advertisement project for this outgoing Prime Minister. on Bill C-36.

By invoking closure with this bill not only has the government This is not a new trend. The Liberal government, the very same run roughshod over democratic conventions of parliament by party when it was on this side of the House criticized the Mulroney failing to seek a mandate from voters, not only has it disrespected a government for its habit of invoking closure and time allocation, longstanding convention in our system that one needs a democratic has done so 41 times since 1994. mandate to proceed with major spending programs, it has also run roughshod over the principles of sound, transparent public account- Mr. Speaker, I know you have a particular concern for parlia- ing as articulated by the auditor general. mentary reform and helped chair a committee dealing with reforms to ensure that the closure and time allocation powers of govern- ment were not abused as they were in parliaments previous to 1993. Let us be clear. Bill C-36, by establishing the Canada millen- It is regretful, and I say this as a new member, that the government nium scholarship fund in this year for a public expenditure which has failed to restrain its excessive use of what really should be a will not be made for at least two fiscal years into the future, breaks very rare lever to limit debate in this place. every single rule and convention of clear, transparent and prin- cipled public accounting. That is not my view as a member of the opposition. It is not the view of partisans. It is the view of the This is parliament. The purpose of this place is to deliberate on non-partisan authority appointed by this place to review and legislation brought forward by the government. It is not to rubber comment on the accuracy of the public accounts. stamp legislation brought forward by the bureaucracy or the executive branch. It is to deliberate, to debate, to amend, to consider, to ensure that those who pay the bills for the legislation The auditor general in talking about the change in reporting the we pass have their concerns fully and exhaustively expressed with millennium fund in the current fiscal year as opposed to the year in respect to every single piece of legislation, particularly pieces of which it will actually be expended said: ‘‘I believe the change will legislation like Bill C-36 which have such an enormous impact on open the door for governments to influence reported results by the fiscal and economic condition of Canadians. simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then deciding 7144 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end of the year sands of other talented Canadian trained young people have gone once preliminary numbers are known’’. abroad where they can find better economic opportunities afforded by lower tax regimes. He went on to say in a letter: ‘‘Indeed it is not possible to use the contingency reserve for new policy initiatives unless parliament We will vote against this bill to stand up for democracy. We will has approved them and the amount is included in the main or vote against time allocation, as we did this morning, and we will supplementary estimates. In effect, unless parliament has voiced its vote for tax relief to give younger Canadians the real economic approval neither a program nor an expenditure can exist’’. opportunities they need and deserve.

It is absolutely clear what the auditor general told parliament and [Translation] told this government. It does not have the legislative authority to expend the money in two years but to book it on this year’s budget. As somebody who has watched public finances very closely for a Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very long time, this is probably the most notorious instance of a pleased to speak to this important bill and to the group of motions government’s cooking the books and misleading the public about we have introduced, which consist essentially in deleting any how public money is actually being spent that I have ever reference to the existence of millennium scholarships. witnessed. Why are we introducing this group of motions? Our reason is a Provincial governments over the past several years have made good one. We are doing so because, with these millennium great strides in improving the transparency of their public ac- scholarships, the federal government is poking its nose into other counts. I refer to the Government of Alberta which conducted an people’s business. During the three weeks of hearings held by the exhaustive review of what had become very problematic public Standing Committee on Finance, 14 Quebec organizations ap- accounts in the late 1980s and early 1990s. peared, all saying the same thing, which was that the federal government has no business interfering in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. According to the very Constitution that In 1993 Premier Ralph Klein commissioned an independent these people claim to be defending, the federal government does review of the entire public accounts and budgetary practices by a not have the right to interfere and the organizations are asking for panel of experts. That government adopted almost every single the right to opt out with full compensation for Quebec. recommendation of the independent panel, almost every recom- mendation of its auditor general, and every recommendation of the chartered accountants of Alberta to reform the way the public Those who appeared before the committee did so on behalf of accounts are presented and to bring them into compliance with organizations as important as the FTQ, the CSN, and university and generally accepted public sector accounting practices. college student groups. A group of former student movement leaders who presided over the reform in the education sector over the last eleven years came to deliver essentially seven messages to D (1655 ) the committee, and more particularly to the federal government. The first of these messages is that, with these millennium scholar- ships, the federal government is revealing its complete lack of Even the Government of B.C., famous for its shell games with familiarity with Quebec’s reality. public finances, had an independent commission on public ac- counts. But the federal government really seems to believe that it can just design the books any way it wants and essentially mislead Once again, the government is demonstrating its bad faith. If it the Canadian public about how its money is being spent. That is had wanted to do the right thing, it would have amended the shameful. Canada Student Loans Act. We know that all that was needed was to add the scholarships to that legislation and it would have possible to opt out with full compensation. What are the Liberals doing with this $2.5 billion? They are creating the Prime Minister’s millennium memorial fund. They have decided, in a country with 17% youth unemployment, to say My first point is this government’s bad faith. My second is this. we will help as a federal government to further subsidize your The negotiations under way could have been given a chance, higher education but we are not going to give you an environment without this rush to pass a bill that, as we know, does not give the where you can work. foundation authority to allow a province to opt out with full compensation if it so wishes. For instance, my brother went to a Canadian law school with a subsidized post-secondary program. It would be further subsidized Why? It is obvious, the Prime Minister said so himself, that the by the Canadian millennium scholarship fund. Because of the taxes government needed to be visible. It therefore introduced a bill that imposed by this and previous governments, he and tens of thou- does not allow opting out with full compensation. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7145

Government Orders The board of directors will not have the power to delegate to the realize it will now understand that federalism—regardless of which provinces. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will be speaking to Bill party is in office—cannot be reformed. This government showed C-36 today, and it is not in favour because the millennium incredible contempt for Quebeckers when it thought that this would scholarships do not reflect the reality of Quebec and of Quebeck- go through smoothly and that Quebeckers would quietly put up ers. with it, because it is a monetary issue.

If there had not been pressure from the Government of Quebec, Just to top it all off, two weeks ago the three main employer if there had not been pressure from the coalition in favour of associations in Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, the Quebec Quebec opting out with full compensation, we would never have chamber of commerce and the Association des manufacturiers et had the opportunity to speak on behalf of Quebec. des exportateurs du Québec testified before the committee. These are not exactly sovereignist people. The representatives of these D three associations came to tell the government to stop the study of (1700) the bill until negotiations were complete. If an agreement is reached, it will be included in the law. If none is reached, the Forty one per cent of the witnesses heard. This means the government will assume its responsibility and the opposition its. committee heard 1.2 million people through their associations. It But there will be no pretence of democracy as is being imposed on means 80,000 owners of small and medium size businesses. us today.

As we know, the business world, including the Conseil du This is why the Bloc has presented motions to eliminate patronat du Québec, the Quebec chamber of commerce and the everything to do with the foundation from this bill. Quebec will Quebec and Canadian association of manufacturers et exporters never allow the government to tromp all over a system it has came and told the committee that Quebec should be allowed to developed, which is the best in the world. We will never let it manage its education sector, and that opting out with full com- happen. We will ensure it does it by gagging us at every stage, pensation should be allowed, so that the money could be used based otherwise this bill will never be passed. on Quebec’s needs and realities. This is very disappointing. [English] Several student associations from outside Quebec came to tell the government to listen to Quebec. They said the federal govern- Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speak- ment should, for once, listen to Quebec’s demands. I attended a few er, it is a privilege again to be able to make some remarks on Bill meetings with various representatives, associations officials and C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, and specifically on the witnesses, and I can tell you that several witnesses realized that the amendment with respect to the millennium scholarship fund. government was acting in bad faith on this issue. There are four problems the government has created for itself, to The consensus in Quebec included stakeholders from the educa- a large degree, with the bill. Canadians need to know about these tion sector and union representatives, but polls were also con- problems and need to recognize that the government has not ducted. In one of them, 71% of the respondents were more handled the issue well at all. supportive of the Canada social transfer. People said it had been very difficult for them to go through the period of austerity created by the cuts, and they felt that, perhaps, the surpluses were not being D (1705 ) managed properly, since the government was giving $2.5 billion to a private foundation which, as we know, will have a rather wide These are the problems. The first problem is the whole business mandate. I do not think we should expect a great deal of transparen- of the design of the fund. Not only was it designed in such a way cy from that foundation, and I am very disappointed. that it contravenes a lot of the jurisdictional realties of our country but it also causes some heightened interprovincial tensions quite Therefore, I ask the consent of this House to postpone consider- unnecessarily. The second problem is with the accounting that was ation of this bill until we have seen the outcome of the negotiations used to fund this initiative. The third problem was the trouble we between Quebec and Ottawa. Why not defer consideration of the ran into with the legislation and then closure being put into place to bill? Mr. Speaker, I am urging you to ask if the House would agree cut off debate and ramming the legislation through, which is a to defer consideration of this legislation. typical Liberal tactic that is becoming more typical as time goes on. The fourth problem is that the legislation does not go very far in The government is acting in bad faith. We sovereignists know addressing the problems of students. that many Quebeckers are not acting in bad faith, because they still had hopes that the federal system would undergo a reform. The I would just like to touch on each of these problems a bit. With millennium foundation, because it arrogantly encroaches on the respect to the design of the fund, the government after it took office rights of the provinces, has shown the true colours of the federal slashed funding by 35% to 40% to the provinces for programs like government. We hope that many Quebeckers who did not yet post-secondary education. It wasted the money that was to go to the 7146 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders provinces to keep post-secondary education services available to Liberals to be able to help other good and deserving Liberals for our citizens. That was the first act in this drama. political purposes. That is a genuine concern of the opposition in this whole matter. It also disrespects provincial jurisdiction in the area of education. The second act in the drama began in February with the budget. The 1995 budget was the family budget, the child poverty budget. Liberals like to have a theme or a cause. They like to be able to say The constitution says that the provinces have control over the they care about something. The theme of the last budget before this delivery of post-secondary education services, but the federal one was poor children. There was much violin playing about poor government as usual feels it knows best. Did the federal govern- children, mostly poor because of the terrible fiscal policies of the ment go to the education minister of Manitoba? Did it go to the government. education minister of New Brunswick and say that due to thrift and good management, and maybe due to heavier taxation, it has some The theme of the last budget was education. Students were to be extra money to spend on education? Did it ask how someone helped. If we listened to government speakers we could hear them responsible for delivering educational services in the provinces on going on and on about the value of education and how wonderful it the post-secondary level feel the money should be spent? Did the was that we looked after our children and their training, et cetera. government do that? There was no mention of the fact that the Liberals had slashed education funding just shortly before this wonderful education The answer is no. There was not a word said to the provincial budget. That was all forgotten, but this budget was to do something ministers responsible for these services. The federal government for students. just decided it would spend $2.5 billion on this grand gesture to show that the Prime Minister was a fine fellow who cares about There are over one million students in the country, many of youth and students. That was the flavour of the day. The govern- whom are in retraining or upgrading because the economy is ment must have done some polling to show that people were changing. Yet this so-called program only helps 7% of all people worried about education. who are trying desperately to gain the educational and training skills they need to compete in the emergent economy. Another aspect of the millennium scholarship fund was the way it was put on the government books. The government said it was to Further, the millennium scholarship fund has all the earmarks of spend the money and therefore deduct it right now from its cash a grand gesture by the Prime Minister. This was the Prime flow. It was not to be spent until the year 2000 but it was to be Minister’s legacy. This was a memorial to the Prime Minister’s deducted from cash on hand, from the revenue stream right now. generosity toward students and concern for youth. The fact of the matter was that the concern was kind of newborn. It came after the Let us think about this point for a minute. Suppose a farmer in slashing of funding to post-secondary education. Now we are to Saskatchewan says his tractor is getting worn out but thinks it will wear education on our heart and the Prime Minister is to have a do for a couple of more seasons. In the spring of 2000 he plans to millennium scholarship fund for only 7% of our students. buy a new tractor but he wants to deduct that capital expense now because he has already made up his mind that he will spend the Those 7% who get scholarships will find it taxed. They will give money. What happens if he tries to count it as an expenditure in part of it back to the federal government. Their families may 1998? actually give a whole lot more back to the federal government if the student who qualifies for a scholarship loses dependant status in the context of the family tax structure. Here we have a few students Let us think of the response of Revenue Canada to the farmer getting a scholarship who will be taxed on the scholarship which who intends to spend the money in the year 2000 and would like to may rearrange the family tax status. use it a capital expense today. The farmer would get a horse laugh from the government or the revenue department.

Who are the students to be given the gift of a scholarship by the federal government? If the track record of the Liberal government What about a business person who intends to upgrade facilities holds true, the scholarships will be largely targeted as rewards to or any person who intends to make a tax deductible expense in the good and faithful Liberals and Liberal supporters and those who the future and tries to claim it today? That would never be allowed, but Liberals want to court. the government thinks it is not subject to those reasonable rules of accounting and is cooking the books to hide a surplus so that at the end of the day it can make even more spending announcements D (1710 ) close to an election.

I do not think it is too unkind to say that this is how the Liberals I see you are cutting me off, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so since my have operated in a whole range of areas and how they are very time is up. The government uses closure and cutting off debate so likely to continue to operate. It will be a nice slush fund for that these badly designed measures can be rammed through. It is a May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7147

Government Orders shame. It is a disrespect of parliament. I ask the House not to assume that this government has taken more than its share of support the measures the government is trying to push through. taxable capacity’’.

[Translation] Today, we can say that the Liberal government has done worse than taking more than its taxable share. It has found room to manoeuver at the expense of the sick, schools and the poor and by Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as forcing provinces to do the dirty work. the member of the Bloc Quebecois for the riding of Manicouagan, I am pleased to rise today to express my party’s opposition to one The Liberal government intrudes into Quebec’s jurisdiction and particular element of Bill C-36, namely the creation of the Canada refuses to take its responsibilities by compensating all hepatitis C Millennium Scholarship Foundation. victims.

That part of the bill provides for a $2.5 billion endowment. We In 1964, the federal government led by Mr. Pearson proposed to are opposed to this unspeakable intrusion of the federal govern- offer loans to students and to repay the interest for them. Jean ment in an area that is exclusively under Quebec’s and the other Lesage opposed the proposal because that repayment was a direct provinces’ jurisdiction. It must be noted that the bill contains two grant by the federal government to education. clauses that make it impossible for the Quebec government to get its fair share of the money. In the statement he made at the end of the federal provincial conference held in Quebec, from March 31 to April 2 1964, the man whose election campaign slogan was ‘‘Maîtres chez nous’’, D (1715) Jean Lesage, declared: ‘‘As a matter of fact, we will have to go to court to ensure the constitutional rights of the province are respected, if they do not act on the comments we made’’. Had the Liberal government wanted to show some goodwill, it would have respected Quebec’s jurisdiction in the area of education On April 16 1964, in a telegram to Jean Lesage, Mr. Pearson by amending the Canada Student Loans Act to include scholar- said: ‘‘The federal government intends to propose arrangements ships. This would have allowed Quebec to exercise its right to according to which guaranteed bank loans would be made to withdraw with full compensation, as it is currently entitled to do university students. If a province prefers to go on with its own loan under the Canada Student Loans Act. program, it will be eligible to equivalent compensation’’.

This bill is specifically designed not to allow a province to D (1720) withdraw with full compensation. Ottawa puts its need for visibili- ty before the needs expressed unanimously by Quebec. In short, the federal government made several unsuccessful attempts in the past to invade the education system, and neither the For more than 30 years, Quebec has had its own loans and PQ nor the BQ were there to oppose this. scholarships system that is infinitely more sophisticated than that of any other province. The entire education community in Quebec According to the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, Bill is opposed to this plan. The only way to avoid duplication is to C-36 illustrates the Canadian government’s ignorance of the recognize the consensus that exists in Quebec and give the Quebec Quebec loans and grants system and of its priorities in the area of government the right to withdraw with full compensation. education. According to the president of the Fédération des cégeps, which Let us look at history since it shows clearly the federal govern- comprises 48 colleges, Bill C-36 totally ignores what Quebec has ment’s bad habit of wanting to interfere in the area of education. In understood in the past 30 years with regard to student financial 1953, the Liberal federal government of Louis Saint-Laurent tried assistance. to subsidize Canadian universities through the National Conference of Canadian Universities. The millennium scholarships are only an excuse. The federal government is using the establishment of the fund to encroach on The Quebec government of Maurice Duplessis killed the federal the area of education, which comes under Quebec’s exclusive plan. It opposed the federal government, which wanted to replace jurisdiction. with federal subsidies some financial powers that were essential to In doing so, it is not helping Quebec reduce student debt or fund provinces and, thus, intrude into education, which was an area of universities and post-secondary educational institutions. It is just exclusive provincial jurisdiction. after additional visibility.

In January 1957, in L’Action nationale, Mr. Trudeau wrote, on There are two major reasons why we strongly oppose the page 438, and I quote: ‘‘Consequently, if a government has such an establishment of this fund. Politically, the Bloc Quebecois feels overabundance of revenues that it undertakes to provide for a part that the millennium fund is an unspeakable intrusion in a Quebec of the common good which is not in its jurisdiction, one can exclusive jurisdiction. 7148 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders

Moreover, the government has come up with such a confusing D (1725) formula in order to deny Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation that its fund does not achieve the objectives that Time allocation is when the government says ‘‘We are no longer were set. It will only create inequity and confusion, while the interested in hearing what you have to say in opposition. We are problems of students and post-secondary institutions will remain going to limit the number of days and amount of time you have to intact. speak on this issue’’. In a democratic world that is probably as far away from democracy as we can get when time is allocated on such Even though the federal government recognizes the tough an important issue as the budget. financial situation of students, the solutions it puts forward ignore the source of the problem, that is the massive cuts in transfer There is another thing I want to address before I specifically talk payments. In addition, in the case of Quebec, the proposals put about Bill C-36. It is bad enough we have limited time to speak to forward are ineffective, they overlap the measures put in place by this but when there are a limited number of people on the other side the Quebec government and they are undoubtedly an intrusion in an listening it makes it even worse. I have a good mind to call quorum area that comes under Quebec’s exclusive jurisdiction. but I will not. The real problem here is where is the audience? It is pretty sad indeed. Given the societal choices that Quebec has made over the years, the federal strategy is penalizing it. Indeed, the budget penalizes Quebec, which over the years has made major efforts to keep Some hon. members: Three Liberals. tuition fees and student debt at reasonable levels. Mr. Randy White: Yes, three. If they cannot stand the heat, get In Quebec, tuition fees average about $1,700 a year whereas in out of the Commons I would say. the rest of Canada they average about $3,200. Likewise, the average student debt in Quebec is $11,000, whereas students in the One has to wonder why this government would call time rest of Canada owe between $17,000 and $25,000. allocation on a budget. Let us think about that for a minute. According to the parliamentary calendar we sit until June 23. We The government of Quebec suggested that its needs in the can extend days and so on and so forth. The legislation that is of education area lie elsewhere and are not the same as those priority to this government is now down to approximately three identified by the federal government. bills, not enough probably for five days work. We have to question why on earth the government would move time allocation when it has perhaps three priority bills and well over a month to debate The Quebec share of the millennium fund could be better used if them and get them in. the Quebec government were at liberty to invest this money where the needs in the Quebec education system are more pressing. The answer to that lies in what has happened in this House in the last six months. Look at the Minister of Health and his hepatitis The government of Quebec is clear about that: any extra funding boondoggle and how this government mismanaged that whole for education, whatever the means used, must be directed to the issue. Look at the Minister of Justice who said that they are going Quebec government which will redistribute it according to its own to fix the Young Offenders Act but really it could take another two priorities. The right to opt out with full compensation has existed years when the government has already had five years and the since 1964 in the area of financial help for students. media has now picked up on that. The heat is getting on the government which basically has no agenda. Quebec has built itself an effective and efficient system of scholarships that is the envy of students in the other provinces. The The government is trying to get out of the House early by calling government says it is creating this fund to address the problem of time allocation. I wish Canadians watching this truly understood student debt. what this is all about. It is not just about someone standing up here for 10 minutes and going on about an issue. This is really about the In conclusion, I must point out that it would be up to the fundamental basis of democracy itself. It is too bad we live in these foundation, which, under Bill C-36, has not even the mandate to times when governments can essentially still do this to the opposi- negotiate with a province, to determine Quebec’s fair share. tion parties.

[English] Let me get on to Bill C-36, budget implementation, and the implementation of what the Liberals proudly call the millennium Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, fund. This millennium fund supposedly has approximately $2.5 it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-36 although what is not such a billion so that we can provide scholarships to students. There is pleasure is the time allocation aspect of this. I want to explain the nothing about bursaries. I do not think the government knows the problems with time allocation from where I sit. A lot of people who difference between a scholarship and a bursary but I will explain are watching and listening do not understand it. that in a few minutes. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7149

Government Orders The real question is where does the money come from. It came spending $32 million’’. They have not spent a red cent. They have from the 1997-98 budget. The government said we have a balanced not even planned to spend it. It is just amazing when people fall budget and charged to that budget was $2.5 billion. The fact is that into that kind of lunacy, that kind of deceptive measure. the money will not be used until the year 2000 yet the government has charged it to the 1997-98 budget rather than the year Now we are down to two. Since the Speaker is not listening to 1999-2000. this I might as well say the number of Reform members we have in the House. This is really sick. I have a good mind to call for a To one of the three members opposite in the House—and for quorum and get some of these people in here to listen for a change. anyone out there watching, the government virtually has no one hear listening to this—it is pretty sick when the government says it It is amazing. We have a multibillion dollar budget and the can justify that. As an accountant, a CMA, a member of the Society government has not reduced anything. It has not really spent of Management Accountants, I fully understand what the general anything on anything meaningful. It really has not done much at accepted principles are in accounting. all, except that when a little bit of heat gets put on a whole bunch of issues it calls time allocation so nobody can really speak in detail to the bill. D (1730) I think that speaks very loudly to the concern of average Basically in government accounting one does not charge an Canadians. The Liberal government not only has a very weak expenditure in a year in which it is not expended. The fact is that agenda, but it actually does not have programs that are substantive the government should have charged the $2.5 billion to the and valuable to most Canadians. Finally, since I only have a minute millennium fund in the year in which the costs are to be incurred and there are only two members opposite, I might as well tell them and that is the year 2000. this—

Why am I saying that? The fact of the matter is, the government The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that it is said it had balanced the books. The real fact of the matter is, it improper to refer to the absence of members in the House. I know would have had a $2.5 billion surplus, but it chose to second that he may have been trying to cover it by that age-old tradition of money so it would not have to give the taxpayer a break and the referring to the presence of a few, but I, myself, have tried that public would not be able to ask why it did not write down the debt technique and it has been ruled out of order. I know the hon. or lower taxes. The government said it had no money, that it had member would agree with the previous ruling. balanced the books to zero. The fact is, there was a surplus and the government chose to hide that surplus by seconding $2.5 billion Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will no longer say that there into something called a millennium fund for which the dollars will are only two Liberals in the House. not even be used until the year 2000. D (1735 ) Out of 175 government members, there are three in the House. It is really disgusting. I guess I will talk to my colleagues. Not only In summary, the issue of the budget and the issue of crime fall on do they understand it a little better, there are more of them in the deaf ears in this country because this is a government of press House. releases. This is a government of rumour, of show, but it is not a government of substantive issues. Meanwhile we are still waiting It is not just the millennium fund show that the government is for a national victims bill of rights, for a young offenders act, for a putting on here. It is not just the show that the justice minister put real millennium fund. So those two members opposite ought to get on with respect to the changes to the Young Offenders Act. It is not with it. just the show that government members are playing out for [Translation] hepatitis C victims. The fact is that the government’s agenda is just show. There is no depth to it. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 has a big problem, which is called An hon. member: Where is the beef? the millennium scholarships.

Mr. Randy White: Where is the beef, my colleague says. Where The scholarships are for the students. In principle, everybody is the meat in all of this? will agree that we must help our students complete their education while maintaining their debt level as low as possible. Therefore The justice minister the other day commented on the $32 million again, at first sight, the scholarships are a good idea. I will explain in the budget that the government is planning to spend on preven- in a moment that ideas that are good for some people are tive measures for young offenders. There is not a red cent sometimes bad for others. anywhere. The provinces do not even know about it, yet govern- ment members go to the media and say ‘‘Guess what we are I would also like to talk of the term ‘‘millennium’’. Why the spending on preventive measures for young offenders? We are millennium scholarships? Because we will soon be in the year 2000 7150 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders and our Prime Minister thought it would be a nice way to go down Good grades are important for sure, but today, we need not only in history as the driving force behind these scholarships to be excellent but also decent students. Successful students all need awarded starting in the year 2000. financial support. It is not only the top students, the elite, that need financial support. Companies do not need only the students with the best marks. Of course, that is important and it is a very good You will agree with me that if Canadian students need scholar- thing, but companies also need adequate students. ships, they need them now and not in the year 2000 and after, although they will still need them then. It is remarkable how the finance minister has deducted from this year’s budget the $2.5 In Quebec, students have access to scholarships according to billion which he intends to spend on this scholarship fund in the their needs but this will not be the case in Canada. Canada may year 2000. But between now and the year 2000, not one Canadian decide to award scholarships on the basis of merit rather than need. student will see as much as a penny. However, I cannot accept the fact that someone using Quebec money will try to impose on Quebec a system that is contrary to its convictions and its values, contrary to what Quebec has been doing I have said earlier that the scholarships are a good idea for some for more than 30 years. but a bad one for others. They are a good idea for Canadian students outside Quebec but a bad one for Quebec students. Why? A bursary program has been in existence in Quebec for more than Do you know how much money Quebec will be forced to put into that foundation? In Quebec, everybody is against this millennium 30 years, since Jean Lesage was premier. We care for our students scholarship system. So how much more will be stolen away—par- and we help them financially through bursaries and loans. It is a don the expression—by this millennium fund? Just a bit over $600 system that works well for Quebec. million. That is a lot of money.

Elsewhere in Canada, such a program will not come into Six hundred million dollars is almost twice what the province of existence until the year 2000. The provinces are admittedly a few Quebec has been forced to hand over to the municipalities because years behind Quebec. In fact, they are more than 30 years behind the federal government has cut transfer payments. Those $600 Quebec. Now, the federal government decides to directly infringe million would solve a lot of health problems. upon a provincial area of jurisdiction and offer these bursaries.

Six hundred million dollars is the amount that the people of Although, on the one hand, I am happy for the students in Quebec will be forced to pay to fund these millennium scholarships Canada, on the other hand, I should point out that Quebec’s money which we do not need because we already have our own system. We is being used to provide a service we already have. In other words, end up paying twice. we are paying twice for the same thing. Once again, here we are with a totally unacceptable duplication Quebec, with its 30-year-old bursary system, is pursuing some of effort. This is a total intrusion by the federal government into very precise objectives. For 30 years, higher education at college or our affairs, forcing us into taking on something far less attractive university level has been far less expensive in Quebec than in the than what we already have in place. other provinces. Why? Because we in Quebec decided—and this is a societal choice based on Quebeckers’ values—to make higher education more accessible to everyone. Moreover, the number of Such an attitude can only reinforce two feelings in me: first pride college and university graduates in Quebec is much higher than in being a Quebecker and in sharing these values that have been in place for 30 years or more, of encouraging our students through a anywhere else in Canada. In this regard, Quebec is a much richer scholarship system when Canada does not even have one of its own country than Canada. yet, not until the year 2000. I am proud to be a Quebecker because we are more advanced in a number of areas, this being one of them.

D (1740) At the same time, I am proud to be a sovereignist, because sovereignty will be the only way to stop a federal government, a Let us come back to the scholarship fund. Quebec has its own federal system that wants to use our money, my money, the money scholarship system where money is given according to the needs of of all Quebeckers, for something we have no need of. Six hundred the students. Those in need may apply for and receive a scholar- million dollars is a fortune. ship.

The interest on that amount would pay for about $3,000 in What the Prime Minister proposes in Bill C-36 is to give scholarship money to some 250 Quebec students. But there is more scholarships on the basis of merit instead of need. The better the to it than that. In Quebec, our bursary system is working fine, and grades, the more chances of receiving a millennium scholarship. so is our loan system. What we do need is money to put back into May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7151

Government Orders our cegeps, into our universities, so that they can provide students ing and the whining and the crying from the Liberal caucus of the with the best quality education possible. day. Not any more. These people well learned the fine art of dictatorship. It did not take a trip over to Cuba to learn that, I am What is the point of having scholarship money in your pocket if quite sure. your educational institution cannot afford to give you a top-flight education? We look at what is going on. I mentioned taxes. I would like to give a brief outline of where Canada sits now. Canada has the D (1745) highest tax burden of all the G-7 countries. Our total tax burden is 28% higher than the G-7 average and 48% higher than our In recent years, the federal government has slashed transfer neighbour next door, the United States. payments for post-secondary education and, as a result, our universities and colleges have to make do with smaller budgets. This government has a habit of standing up in this House and After slashing our institutions’ ability to deliver very high quality saying we are the greatest country in the world to live in. We are the education, it now wants to give money directly to students to enrol sharing, caring country of the world. I have news for the govern- in educational institutions that are not as good as they should be. ment. It is killing everything in this country. It is running the entrepreneurs out of this country. It is forcing unemployment. Quebec’s request, which is supported by the Bloc Quebecois, is Unemployment today is at an all time high. We have bankruptcies quite simple: the federal government should give Quebec its $600 at record levels. million and let it invest in high quality education. We can continue to look after our students as we have been doing so successfully for more than 30 years. D (1750 )

[English] We have people who are truly suffering. What is the govern- Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speak- ment’s answer to this? A $2.5 billion millennium fund so it and the er, I rise today to debate Bill C-36. Prime Minister can feel good in case there is an election within a year after that. Shame on them. What we are talking about here is the so-called millennium fund, about $2.5 billion set up for scholarships. I have to question this. I see from some of the people nodding on the other side that I No doubt many of us here in the House remember quite well, as it must be hitting a soft spot. They know it is true. The people out was not that long ago, when this same government decided to rip there know it is true. They know they are being taxed to death to the provinces off to the tune of $7 billion right out of health and supply nothing. The auditor general has raised grave concerns education. Now it turns around and says it will give back $2.5 about what is going on with this fund. What does the government billion in a millennium fund. That is like ripping your arm off and do? Nothing. It pays no attention to the auditor general. It does not giving you back the finger. This government is very good at it. even address his concerns about how this is being funded, about the discrepancy and about the argument on how the bookkeeping has I have news for the government. It is not its money. It is taken place in order to create this so-called fund. taxpayers’ money. We are the most heavily taxed nation in the G-7. It is our money. It is not the government’s money. When I see I would say these boys make the James boys look like kids in the something like this put in place, I know for a fact it has nothing at candy store. They know full well how to rip off the Canadian all to do with education. taxpayer and get away with it. They have had years of experience. It has to do with trying to make the Prime Minister look good. It has to do with the members on the opposite side, the so-called Let us have another look at what is going on. In 1993 when the government of this country, able to pat themselves on the back and Liberals took office the tax revenue totalled $116.5 billion or say look what we have done for you, the people. We rip it out of approximately $8,951 per working Canadian. This year this gov- your education fund. We rip it out of your health fund. But we will ernment will collect $160 billion or $11,335 per working Canadian. give you back peanuts. We will give you back enough that maybe That is an increase of 26% in five years. I know many stock one in seven of your children might qualify for it, and if they do we promoters who would love to have that kind of increase. I know will tax it back off them. many people who hold investments would love to have that kind of increase in their portfolio. That is what this government is doing, That is what this government is so proud of. That is why this 26% in five years. government has decided all of a sudden that it will put time allocation on this bill, a budget bill. To put it into perspective, the overall result according to Statistics Canada is that any improved family earnings acquired It was not that long ago when I felt sorry for the Liberals when largely to the government between 1989 and 1995, the real after tax they were in opposition and the Conservatives decided to put time income of the average Canadian family fell by $3,461. Are they not allocation, closure, on everything. I can well remember the plead- proud of that? It fell from $41,084 to $37,623. Are they ever doing 7152 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders a wonderful job over there. They are for themselves but certainly Arising from a commitment made by the first ministers to not for the law-abiding taxpaying citizens of this country. implement an action plan for youth employment, the Canadian opportunities strategy makes knowledge and skills more readily accessible and affordable. This is a continuing process. It goes on. In 1977 in the midst of the Trudeau years the government collected $7,044 from every working Canadian. By 1986, two years after Mulroney, the take [English] was $14,593. By 1996 after this government took over, it reached $22,792. That is a really a record to be proud of. It takes from the The foundation of the strategy is the Canada millennium scholar- poor. It takes from anybody it can, it keeps on taking and it gives ship fund which will provide more than 100,000 low and middle back a so-called millennium fund. Then it has the gall to say it is income students with scholarships averaging $3,000 a year for each going to help our students. year of the first decade in the new millennium. Individuals can receive up to $15,000, reducing the debtload many recipients Our students want jobs. They want to be able to work in this would otherwise incur by over half. country. They want a better education. They do not like being taxed to death when they finally have it. They do not like the debt they Up to 50,000 more students with children or other dependants owe when they get out. They have just cause to be worried about will be able to take advantage of Canada study grants to help them that. It is about time the government started to worry about what is cope with rising costs. These grants will help people who are in going on and what is there for these kids when they get out. An financial need to continue with their education, increasing their education is fine, maybe one of the finest things there is. But if own and their children’s prospects for prosperity. there is nothing out here when they come out it is of no use to anybody. We well know that. Maybe it is time this government The study grants, in addition to the increased child care tax started to realize that. credit that all Canadians now enjoy, will help young parents get their children off to a good start in life. This is a total farce. It is a farce on Canadian taxpayers. It is a farce on the people who were elected to come back here and have a [Translation] say when we have a government that decides you will keep your mouth shut, sit here and just be quiet. Our government is particularly proud of the measures announced in this budget that will help our students gain the knowledge they D (1755 ) need through strategic investments in science and technology, which are the driving force of the new economy and can be most attractive to young inquisitive minds. These investments are Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, crucial to the competitiveness of our country. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to add my voice in praise of the visionary budget tabled in this House on February 24. On that date Canadians found a reason to have hope and faith in The Canadian opportunities strategy will provide additional a better future. From that day forward we have begun to rebuild funding for advanced research for our graduate students as well as Canada from a blueprint based on opportunities. for the three granting councils in Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Of all the remarkable achievements outlined in the budget, the The combined budget of these three granting councils will be Canadian opportunities strategy stands out as the hallmark of this increased by $400 million over the next three years. government’s plan for Canada in the 21st century. [English] The 1998 budget builds on progress achieved in previous budgets to provide Canadians with greater opportunities to acquire Equally important, this budget increases funding for the Cana- the knowledge and the skills needed for jobs both now and in the dian network for advancement of research in industry and educa- future. tion as well as SchoolNet and the community access program to bring the benefits of information technology into more classrooms [Translation] and more communities across Canada.

Under the Canadian opportunities strategy, this government Another area of crucial importance to young people is helping introduced and promoted measures to help Canadians make the graduates manage their student debtloads. Witnesses appearing transition from school to work, pay off their student loans, return to before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development school to upgrade their skills or contribute to the education savings and the Status of Persons with Disabilities were unanimous in their plan on behalf of the next generation of workers. This strategy position that to ensure access to post-secondary education a takes comprehensive and co-ordinated action on seven fronts. positive system of student financial assistance is paramount. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7153

Government Orders

D (1800) Many private sector employers are responding to this challenge by providing opportunities for young Canadians. The Canadian opportunities strategy provides tax relief on student loan interest payments as well as an education credit and [Translation] child care expense deduction for part time students. This government has taken measures to encourage a larger number of employers to create new jobs for workers. We will give About one million Canadians will benefit from the improve- these employers an employment insurance premium holiday for ments to the Canada student loan program which will help gradu- young people hired in the years 1999 and 2000. This means that, ates better manage the debt they incur and which will direct grants each year, employers will make savings of about $100 million in to those in greatest need. their payroll expenditures.

Countless more of today’s children will be able to attend [English] colleges, vocational schools or universities because their parents can now take advantage of federal incentives under the Canada The 1998 budget speaks to Canadians’ profound belief that we education savings grants program. can build a strong economy by building a secure society. The two are flip sides of the same coin. These government grants will encourage families to start setting aside money early for their children’s post-secondary education [Translation] under the registered education savings plan. The balanced approach on which this legislation is based will [Translation] result in sustainable dividends that will benefit Canadians now and for decades to come. This is the way to go for Canada, on the eve of the new millennium, to have the opportunity to live in a more The opportunity for Canadians to withdraw tax free from their prosperous society that cares about the well-being of all its registered retirement savings plan to enrol in full time education members. and training is another well thought out innovation that will help to ensure that Canadians have easier access to professional develop- When Bill C-36 becomes law, it will be a moment of great pride, ment. Canadians already in the workforce will be able to benefit not only in the life of parliamentarians but of all Canadians. from this continuous learning process throughout their careers. D (1805) Together, these measures will help Canada to develop a highly skilled and competitive workforce for the new world economy Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I based on knowledge. am honoured to speak today, because it is probably the last time. I have only ten minutes, but I could talk for an hour. Whatever satisfaction I might get from these remarkable re- forms, I am also very proud of the fact that our government will do Naturally, you will understand that, on the subject of Bill C-36, I everything it can to ensure that no one is forgotten. The preserva- will be talking about the millennium scholarships. In this bill, there tion of social peace implies that everyone must have equal is some pretty strong language, I must say. opportunity to benefit from what our society has to offer. My colleagues have spoken at length today on various matters [English] concerning the bill on the millennium scholarship fund. Canadians ask us what Quebeckers want. It is so simple. As part of its values, In addition to the Canadian opportunities strategy, the February Quebec decided to establish a loans and bursaries system—not a budget strengthened other progressive programs which will help perfect one, I admit—but one that met the expectations of many Canada’s children and youth to succeed in the 21st century. young Quebeckers. It has been operating for years, and a number of students have told me that it is one of the most effective systems in Canada. A major infusion of new moneys will support youth employment and participation in society. The government has doubled its When I say that Quebeckers have values, I mean their values. We funding for youth at risk, principally those who have not completed have never tried to impose these values on the rest of Canada. If high school and who lack basic education and job skills. Through another province wants to do what it wants with its loans and partnerships with employers, organizations and non-profit groups bursaries system, that is fine with me. the new funds will be used for on the job training, career counsel- ling, mentoring and literacy upgrading. At one point, faced with a growing demand probably from the rest of Canada, the Prime Minister decided, saying he wanted to do Governments have a role to play in tackling the issue of youth his share, to make a bequest. He is attacking the problem of student unemployment but clearly we cannot solve the problem alone. debt. A very commendable thing to do. I have no complaint up to 7154 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders this point. Except that where things start to get serious, we have to with a plan to help only the best students. But the new reality is make sure they are done responsibly and efficiently. that our young people need to work to pursue their education.

Creating the millennium scholarship foundation means creating We do not know what proportion of these scholarships will be duplication. There will be a system of loans and bursaries in based on merit and what proportion will be based on need. The Quebec City and another in Ottawa. This spells a loss of efficiency right off, in my opinion. government could have said in committee that, for example, 10% of the scholarships will be awarded to the elite, to the best students. It could have said that it chose to help the best students and to In addition, I recall asking the Prime Minister at one point if encourage them to go as far as they can so they can become the there was not a certain element of visibility involved. I think the future leaders of our society. We could at least have debated this, federal government is looking for ways to leave its mark on the but we cannot. Why? Because we do not know what proportion of cheques. I must say I have no problem with that. It can leave its these scholarships will be based on merit and what proportion will mark everywhere, so long as the students get help. The Prime Minister answered my question by saying that visibility was indeed be based on need. involved. He could have pretended he wanted to help students without mentioning he wanted visibility, but no, he acknowledged I have serious questions about our work here today, and that also it in the House of Commons. I could not believe my ears. goes for the members opposite. After all, as democratically elected representatives of the people, we are saying that it is not our There are many points I could talk about. I will discuss some responsibility to make societal choices, but the responsibility of a which have not been mentioned as often as they should. The private board of directors. And we do not even know who is going Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be managed by a board of to be on that board. Moreover, we do not know the essence and the directors. This arm’s length body will not be accountable to the intent of this plan. We can certainly change a few commas and people. It is as if we, the democratically elected members of make insignificant revisions but, overall, what is this leading to? Parliament, were to say that we are not responsible enough to be And there is also the students of Quebec who, in the end, will see a entrusted with managing such a huge amount of money, that we had reduction in the assistance they receive. better bring in people from the private sector who will undoubtedly do a much better job than us. But if people do not agree with this concept, they cannot go through their MPs, the very persons they I met students from Alberta. Their system of loans and scholar- elected. I have a moral problem with this. ships is not as good or perhaps not as generous as Quebec’s system. They see that the federal government will intervene and they are Another point. Not only are we delegating our authority to a very happy. If it wants to proceed in this way, I have no problem board of directors, but we do not know who they all are. I feel like I with that. But I do not want it to intrude into my values, in am signing a blank cheque. I have serious reservations about that. Quebec’s values. Then people wonder why we want our own country. It seems quite obvious to me. Another point, the issue of equal opportunity. This bill is attacking some very basic principles our society is founded upon. How would it have bothered the rest of Canada if Parliament had said ‘‘It is true that in Quebec you have a consensus and different D (1810) values. We do not want to disturb you with that. We think this may not be bad in itself. We are giving you the money and you may use It is said these scholarship will not necessarily be based entirely it as you wish’’? But instead the government is imposing its rules. on need, but also on merit. Today I sat on the committee studying Then it wonders why there are sovereignists in Ottawa. It seems so the bill. I found it ridiculous for the committee to review a bill simple to me. Then it asks ‘‘What does Quebec want?’’ which is not even complete. Today, a lot was said against the fact that part of these scholarships would be decided on merit and part on need. But what will the proportion be? Is it 10%, 50% or 90% of This is incredible. When I talk about Quebec’s values, I do not these scholarships which will go to the best students? talk about a political party that took a stand, but about a consensus among students and university associations and presidents. In short, everyone in Quebec opposes this measure, even the national I have several friends who are going to university and who do not assembly. The Liberal Party of Quebec said ‘‘No, this is not a good have much money and have to work. It is tough to work and go to thing’’. All this for the sake of the federal government’s visibility. university at the same time. Of course, working lowers a student’s academic performance, but it is the last resort. This disappoints me, because education is the future.

Students whose academic performance suffers because they have The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to work need more money, but our very good government came up to the order adopted earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7155

Government Orders put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of (b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year; the bill now before the House. (c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and

(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation. D (1815) (3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to [English] the Minister of Finance. 59.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise required to be kept by the council under subsection 59.1(1). on a point of order. I seek consent for the following motion. I move: (2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister’s department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).’’ That all motions at report stage of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be deemed Motion No. 71 moved, seconded and read, and that a recorded division be deemed requested for each such motion. That Bill C-36, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 25 on page 26 with the following: The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Medicine Hat ‘‘60. Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Division,’’ have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:

Some hon. members: Agreed. Motion No. 72

The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the That Bill C-36, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 28 with the following: motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? ‘‘a fine of not more than $50,000 or to’’

Some hon. members: Agreed. Motion No. 73

That Bill C-36, in Clause 64, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 28 the (Motion agreed to) following:

‘‘(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), the council shall provide the Minister with a Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved: copy of every by-law that is made under this Part, including a by-law that amends a Motion No. 68 by-law.

That Bill C-36, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 24 (6) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided to the Minister with the following: under subsection (5).’’

‘‘(b) raw leaf tobacco intended for retail sale and leaves and stems of the tobacco plant if these leaves and stems have been processed further’’ Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 69 Motion No. 74

That Bill C-36, in Clause 59, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 26 the That Bill C-36, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 29 the following: following:

‘‘(9) Notwithstanding subsection (8), the council shall provide the Minister with ‘‘45.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Part, the copy of every by-law that is made under this Division, including a by-law that council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of all such taxes amends a by-law. that have been collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.

(10) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided to the Minister (2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare under subsection (9).’’ an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in that year which shall include

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved: (a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;

Motion No. 70 (b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 26 the following new (c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and clause: (d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation. ‘‘59.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Division, the council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of (3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to all such taxes that have been collected and expended and the nature of those the Minister of Finance. expenditures. 45.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after (2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were required to be kept by the council under subsection 45.1(1). collected and expended in that year which shall include (2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister department to carry out (a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year; an audit under subsection (1).’’ 7156 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders Motion No. 75 [Translation] That Bill C-36, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 31 the following: Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:

‘‘53.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Part, the Motion No. 82 council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of all such taxes that have been collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures. That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare Motion No. 83 an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were That Bill C-36, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 44 with the collected and expended in that year which shall include following: (a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year; ‘‘Supplementary Child Tax Benefit’’

(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year; Motion No. 84

(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation. [English]

(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:

53.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after Motion No. 85 the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records That Bill C-36, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 23 on page 49 required to be kept by the council under subsection 53.1(1). with the following:

(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister department to carry out ‘‘100. Paragraph 15(l) of the Act is replaced’’ an audit under subsection (1).’’ [Translation] Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved: Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved: Motion No. 76 Motion No. 86 That Bill C-36, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 31 the following: That Bill C-36, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 49 with the following: ‘‘(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the council shall provide the Minister with a copy of every by-law that is made under this Part, including a by-law that amends a ‘‘which an interest-’’ by-law. Motion No. 87

(5) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided to the Minister That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 103. under subsection (4).’’ Motion No. 88 Motion No. 78 That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended That Bill C-36, in Clause 81, be amended, in the English version only, by replacing line 6 on page 38 with the following: (a) by replacing lines 4 to 11 on page 51 with the following: ‘‘(8.2) With respect to 1999, the Minister shall refund, in the prescribed manner, ‘‘Prince Edward Island who purchases the cigarettes or tobacco sticks for to designated persons the prescribed portion of the amount determined by the consumption by the’’ following formula if that amount is more than $1: Motion No. 79 (E2-E1) x P1999

That Bill C-36, in Clause 81, be amended, in the English version only, by where replacing line 19 on page 38 with the following: E1 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1998 by the employer, for which ‘‘Province of Prince Edward Island who purchases the cigarettes or tobacco sticks premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or for con-’’ older but younger than 25 at any time during 1998;

Motion No. 80 E2 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1999 by the employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or That Bill C-36, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 39 with the older but younger than 25 at any time during 1999; and P1999 is 1.4 times the following: premium rate for 1999. (8.21) For the purposes of subsection (8.2), designated persons means persons ‘‘package where the cigarettes are marked and’’ who have paid the employee’s premium or the employer’s premium in 1999.’’ Motion No. 81 (b) by replacing lines 3 to 40 on page 52 with the following:

That Bill C-36, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 39 with the ‘‘(9) If at any time during a year for which a refund is sought two or more employers following: are associated, as defined by the regulations, they shall be considered a single employer for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8.3) and any refund shall be allocated to them in ‘‘package where the cigarettes are marked and’’ the prescribed manner.’’ May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7157

Government Orders [English] ‘‘payable to the employer, the employer shall pay to the Minister by way of penalty, an amount equal to twice the amount of the refund that was applied for or received, as the case may be, by the employer.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved: (8.41) An amount required to be paid by way of penalty by an employer under subsection (8.4) and any interest thereon constitutes a debt to Her Majesty in right of Motion No. 89 Canada and may be recovered as such in any count of competent jurisdiction.’’ Motion No. 92 That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 23 on page 51 and lines 1 to 40 on page 52 with the following: That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 20 on page 52. ‘‘(8.2) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund to the employer the amount by which the total of all amounts paid by the employer as the employer’s Mr. Monte Solberg (Medecine Hat, Ref.) moved: premium during each of these years exceeds 2.8% of the total insurable earnings paid by the employer to his employees for each of these years. Motion No. 93

(8.3) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund to each employee That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 52 the the amount by which the total of all amounts paid by the employee as the employee’s following: premium for each of these years exceeds 2% of the total of all insurable earnings received by the employee for each of these years. ‘‘(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where the total amount of monies expended in a year to pay benefits is less than fifty per cent of the total (8.4) The refunds provided for in this section are payable by the Minister within amount of monies paid in that year by any of premiums, the Minister shall, in the three months after the end of the year for which the premiums were deducted or next year, reduce the premium rate by the amount of unexpended monies that payable.’’ exceeds the amount of those monies that is equal to the amount of monies expended to pay those benefits. The Minister shall, by regulation, carry out such calculations as the Minister deems necessary to effect the reduction.’’ [Translation] Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved: Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved: Motion No. 94

Motion No. 90 That Bill C-36, in Clause 105, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 26 on page 53. Motion No. 95 That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 23 on page 51 and lines 1 to 40 on page 52 with the following: That Bill C-36, in Clause 108, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 13 on page 56.

‘‘(8.3) With respect to 2000, the Minister shall, in the prescribed manner, refund Motion No. 96 to designated persons the prescribed portion of the amount determined by the following formula if that amount is more than $1: That Bill C-36, in Clause 109, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 45 on page 56. Group No. 9 (E2-E1) x P2000 Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved: where Motion No. 97 E1 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1998 by the employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 125. older but younger than 25 at any time during 1998; Motion No. 98 E2 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 2000 by the employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 126. older but younger than 25 at any time during 2000; and P2000 is 1.4 times the Motion No. 99 premium rate for 2000. That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 127. (8.31) For the purposes of subsection (8.3), designated persons means persons who have paid the employee’s premium or the employer’s premium in 2000. Motion No. 100

(9) If at any time during a year for which a refund is sought two or more That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 128. employers are associated, as defined by the regulations, they shall be considered a single employer for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8.3) and any refund shall be Motion No. 101 allocated to them in the prescribed manner.’’ That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

[English] Motion No. 102 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved: [Translation] Motion No. 91 Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) moved: That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 52 with the following: Motion No. 103 7158 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders That Bill C-36, in Clause 130, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 78 with (Division No. 159) the following: ‘‘Monetary Fund arrangement; (a.1) the foreign state has either human rights record that is acceptable to the YEAS Canadian government or if it does not have such a record, is making substantial progress towards improving its human rights record so that it will be acceptable to Members the Canadian government; (a.2) the foreign state has ratified or signed the Convention on the prohibition of Ablonczy Anders Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Saint-Jean) the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their Bailey Bellehumeur destruction; and’’ Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bigras [English] Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Cadman Canuel Casson Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved: Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête Cummins Motion No. 104 Davies de Savoye Debien Desjarlais That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 131. Desrochers Dockrill Dubé (Lévis) Duceppe Motion No. 105 Dumas Earle Epp Forseth That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 132. Fournier Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold Motion No. 106 Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring Gouk That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 133. Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Guay Hardy Harris Hart Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved: Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Motion No. 107 Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan That Bill C-36, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 80 with the Konrad Laliberte following: Lalonde Laurin Lefebvre Lill ‘‘133. (1) Sections 2 to 46 shall not come into force unless, on a day following the Loubier Lunn Mancini Marceau day this Act receives royal assent, the amount referred to in section 46 is, in Marchand Mark accordance with objective accounting standards recommended by the Canadian Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Institute of Chartered Accountants, credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as a Mayfield McDonough liability for the fiscal year 1998-99, in which case those sections shall come into Ménard Mercier force on the day that amount is so credited. Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Nunziata Nystrom (2) Sections 127 to 132 come into force’’ Obhrai Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Proctor Ramsay Reynolds The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking Riis Ritz of the several deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of this Robinson Rocheleau Sauvageau Schmidt bill. Call in the members. Scott (Skeena) Solberg Solomon St-Hilaire Stinson Stoffer And the bells having rung: Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) D Turp Vautour (1835 ) Vellacott Venne Wasylycia-Leis White (Langley—Abbotsford) The Speaker: Order, please. We are to have a series of votes Williams—102 tonight.

We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on NAYS Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget Members tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998. Adams Alcock A vote on Motion No. 1 also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to Anderson Assad Assadourian Augustine 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 to 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54 and 59 to 64. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Baker Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier The first question is on Motion No. 1. Bélair Bélanger Bellemare Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) D (1845 ) Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Borotsik (The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on Boudria Bradshaw Brison Brown the following division:) Bryden Bulte May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7159

Government Orders Byrne Caccia [Translation] Calder Cannis Caplan Carroll Catterall Cauchon The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Clouthier I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps to 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54, and 59 to 64 lost. Cullen DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion [English] Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Easter Eggleton Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Finlay Folco consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following Fontana Fry items: Motion No. 88 and Motion No. 90. Gagliano Godfrey Goodale Graham Gray (Windsor West) Grose The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this Guarnieri Harb fashion? Harvard Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno Iftody Some hon. members: Agreed. Jackson Jennings Jones Jordan Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, included in subsequent votes I Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis would ask you to include the member for Nanaimo—Alberni and Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson the member for Vancouver Island North. After the initial vote they Kraft Sloan Lastewka will be included in our total. On those votes I will be voting with Lavigne Lee my Reform colleagues. Leung Lincoln Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mahoney Some hon. members: Oh, oh. Malhi Maloney Manley Marchi Mr. Chuck Strahl: I believe the motion was that the vote taken Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé Matthews on the first one applied in its entirety. We all voted the same way on McCormick McGuire all of them. The Reform Party will vote yes to this one. McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 159] Mitchell Muise Murray Myers The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 88 and 90 defeated. Nault Normand O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly D Pagtakhan Paradis (1850) Patry Peric Peterson Pettigrew The next question is on Motion No. 2. Phinney Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Pratt Provenzano Redman Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find Reed Richardson that the House would agree to the proposal that members who Robillard Rock voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay. Shepherd St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) The Speaker: Before I ask if there is agreement to proceed, just Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien Szabo Telegdi so we keep everything in order I want members to know that the Thibeault Thompson (Charlotte) question is on Motion No. 2 and a negative vote on Motion No. 2 Torsney Ur requires the question to be put on Motion No. 3. Valeri Vanclief Wappel Wayne Whelan Wilfert —154 Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion? Some hon. members: Agreed. PAIRED MEMBERS Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes to this motion.

Alarie Asselin [Translation] Bennett Collenette Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois mem- Gallaway Guimond Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) bers will vote no, with the exception of the hon. member for Lévis, Perron Proud who had to leave. 7160 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders [English] Brien Brown Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in Calder Cannis Canuel Caplan the House today vote no to this motion except for the member for Carroll Catterall Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who votes yes to this motion only. Cauchon Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Clouthier [Translation] Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps Crête Cullen Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will Davies de Savoye vote yea. Debien Desjarlais Desrochers DeVillers [English] Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Dockrill Dromisky Drouin Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle York South—Weston I will support this motion which extends the Easter Eggleton millennium scholarship fund to private institutions. Finlay Folco Fontana Fournier Fry Gagliano (The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on Gagnon Gauthier the following division:) Girard-Bujold Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham (Division No. 160) Gray (Windsor West) Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy YEAS Harvard Hubbard Ianno Iftody Members Jackson Jennings Jordan Karetak-Lindell Ablonczy Anders Karygiannis Keyes Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Bailey Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Kraft Sloan Laliberte Borotsik Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Lalonde Lastewka Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brison Laurin Lavigne Cadman Casson Lee Lefebvre Chatters Cummins Duncan Epp Leung Lill Forseth Gilmour Lincoln Longfield Goldring Gouk Loubier MacAulay Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Mahoney Malhi Harris Hart Maloney Mancini Harvey Herron Manley Marceau Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Marchand Marchi Jaffer Johnston Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Jones Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé Konrad Lunn McCormick McDonough MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mark McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Matthews McWhinney Ménard Mayfield Mills (Red Deer) Mercier Mifflin Morrison Muise Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Nunziata Obhrai Minna Mitchell Ramsay Reynolds Murray Myers Ritz Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Nault Normand Stinson Strahl Nystrom O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Vellacott Wayne Paradis Patry White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams—60 Peric Peterson Pettigrew Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) NAYS Pillitteri Plamondon Pratt Proctor Members Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson Adams Alcock Anderson Assad Riis Robillard Assadourian Augustine Robinson Rocheleau Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Rock Saada Baker Bakopanos Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Barnes Beaumier Sekora Serré Bélair Bélanger Shepherd Solomon Bellehumeur Bellemare St. Denis Steckle Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras St-Hilaire St-Julien Blondin-Andrew Bonin Stoffer Szabo Bonwick Boudria Telegdi Thibeault Bradshaw Torsney Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7161

Government Orders Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp [Translation] Ur Valeri Vanclief Vautour Venne Wappel Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Wasylycia-Leis Whelan Wilfert—197 Quebecois will vote nay to this motion.

PAIRED MEMBERS [English] Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote Alarie Asselin Bennett Collenette yes to this motion. Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gallaway Guimond [Translation] Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Perron Proud Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. The next vote nay. question is on Motion No. 3. [English] Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would grant following items: Motions Nos. 3, 12, 13 and 19. scholarships to reflect the relative population size of each province. On behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I would support The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion? this motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed. (The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:) Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we agree on that particular recommendation with the notice that the member for Saskatoon— (Division No. 161) Rosetown—Biggar will vote with the NDP on this motion, which is no, and on the other motions as well. YEAS

The Speaker: I address myself to the whip of the New Demo- Members Ablonczy Anders cratic Party. Are we to understand that the hon. member for Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bailey Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar votes yea on the previous vote and Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Cadman Casson nay on these votes? Is that correct? Chatters Cummins Davies Desjarlais Dockrill Duncan Mr. John Solomon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Earle Epp Forseth Gilmour The Speaker: It will be recorded. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hardy [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 160] Harris Hart Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Jaffer Johnston The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 3, 12, 13 and 19 defeated. Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Konrad Laliberte Lill Lunn D (1855 ) Mancini Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Mayfield McDonough The next question is on Motion No. 7. Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Nunziata Nystrom Obhrai Proctor [Translation] Ramsay Reynolds Riis Ritz Robinson Schmidt Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Scott (Skeena) Solberg Solomon Stinson unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous Stoffer Strahl motions be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the Thompson (Wild Rose) Vautour Vellacott Wasylycia-Leis House, with Liberal members voting nay. White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams—66

[English] NAYS The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Members Adams Alcock Anderson Assad Some hon. members: Agreed. Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Bachand (Saint-Jean) Baker Bakopanos Barnes vote yes to this motion. Beaumier Bélair 7162 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders

Bélanger Bellehumeur St-Julien Szabo Bellemare Bergeron Telegdi Thibeault Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Thompson (Charlotte) Torsney Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bertrand Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Bevilacqua Bigras Turp Ur Valeri Vanclief Blondin-Andrew Bonin Venne Wappel Bonwick Borotsik Wayne Whelan Boudria Bradshaw Wilfert —191 Brien Brison Brown Bryden PAIRED MEMBERS Bulte Byrne Caccia Calder Cannis Canuel Alarie Asselin Caplan Carroll Bennett Collenette Catterall Cauchon Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Chamberlain Chan Gallaway Guimond Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Clouthier Coderre Perron Proud Cohen Comuzzi Copps Crête The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 defeated. Cullen de Savoye Debien Desrochers The next question is Motion No. 11. A negative vote on Motion DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion Discepola No. 11 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 12. Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Duhamel Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I Dumas Easter Eggleton Finlay propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted Folco Fontana on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion Fournier Fry now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay. Gagliano Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Goodale Graham Gray (Windsor West) Grose Some hon. members: Agreed. Guarnieri Guay Harb Harvard Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno vote no to this motion. Iftody Jackson Jennings Jones [Translation] Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Quebecois will vote against this motion. Knutson Kraft Sloan Lalonde Lastewka Laurin Lavigne [English] Lee Lefebvre Leung Lincoln Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote Longfield Loubier yes to this motion. MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi [Translation] Maloney Manley Marceau Marchand Marchi Marleau Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé vote yea. Matthews McCormick McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) [English] McWhinney Ménard Mercier Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote yes to this Minna Mitchell motion. Muise Murray Myers Nault (The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on Normand O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan the following division:) Paradis Patry Peric Peterson (Division No. 162) Pettigrew Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Plamondon YEAS Pratt Provenzano Members Redman Reed Richardson Robillard Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Rocheleau Rock Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Borotsik Saada Sauvageau Brison Davies Desjarlais Dockrill Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Earle Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Serré Shepherd Hardy Harvey St. Denis Steckle Herron Jones Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Keddy (South Shore) Laliberte St-Hilaire Lill MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7163

Government Orders

Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Matthews McDonough Massé Mayfield Muise Nunziata McCormick McGuire Nystrom Proctor McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Riis Robinson Ménard Mercier Solomon Stoffer Mifflin Milliken Thompson (Charlotte) Vautour Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Mills (Red Deer) Wasylycia-Leis Wayne—34 Minna Mitchell Morrison Murray Myers Nault Normand Obhrai NAYS O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Peric Members Peterson Pettigrew Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Ablonczy Adams Plamondon Pratt Alcock Anders Provenzano Ramsay Anderson Assad Redman Reed Assadourian Augustine Reynolds Richardson Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Ritz Robillard Bailey Baker Rocheleau Rock Bakopanos Barnes Saada Sauvageau Beaumier Bélair Schmidt Scott (Fredericton) Bélanger Bellehumeur Scott (Skeena) Sekora Bellemare Bergeron Serré Shepherd Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Solberg St. Denis Bertrand Bevilacqua Steckle Stewart (Brant) Bigras Blondin-Andrew Stewart (Northumberland) St-Hilaire Bonin Bonwick Stinson St-Julien Boudria Bradshaw Strahl Szabo Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Telegdi Thibeault Brien Brown Thompson (Wild Rose) Torsney Bryden Bulte Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Byrne Caccia Turp Ur Cadman Calder Valeri Vanclief Cannis Canuel Vellacott Venne Caplan Carroll Wappel Whelan Casson Catterall White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Cauchon Chamberlain Williams—223 Chan Charbonneau Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi PAIRED MEMBERS Copps Crête Cullen Cummins de Savoye Debien Desrochers DeVillers Alarie Asselin Dhaliwal Dion Bennett Collenette Discepola Dromisky Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Drouin Duceppe Gallaway Guimond Duhamel Dumas Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Duncan Easter Perron Proud Eggleton Epp Finlay Folco Fontana Forseth Fournier Fry The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 defeated. Gagliano Gagnon Gauthier Gilmour Girard-Bujold Godfrey Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring Goodale Gouk consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following Graham Gray (Windsor West) items: Motions Nos. 55, 57, 58, 97 and 103. Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb Harris Hart The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in such Harvard Hill (Prince George—Peace River) a fashion? Hoeppner Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson Jaffer Jennings Johnston Some hon. members: Agreed. Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Konrad Kraft Sloan Perhaps I could clarify my votes on these matters. Lalonde Lastewka Laurin Lavigne Lee Lefebvre Leung Lincoln On Motions Nos. 55, 97 and 103 I will vote yea. Longfield Loubier Lunn MacAulay Mahoney Malhi [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 162] Maloney Manley Marceau Marchand Marchi Mark Marleau Mr. John Nunziata: On Motions Nos. 57 and 58 I will vote nay. 7164 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders The Speaker: That will be recorded. Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb Harris (The House divided on Motion No. 57, which was negatived on Hart Harvard Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner the following division:) Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson Jaffer Jennings (Division No. 163) Johnston Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan YEAS Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Konrad Kraft Sloan Lalonde Members Lastewka Laurin Lavigne Lee Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Borotsik Lefebvre Leung Brison Davies Lincoln Longfield Desjarlais Dockrill Loubier Lunn Earle Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) MacAulay Mahoney Hardy Harvey Malhi Maloney Herron Jones Manley Marceau Keddy (South Shore) Laliberte Marchand Marchi Lill MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Mark Marleau Matthews McDonough Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Muise Nystrom Massé Mayfield Proctor Riis McCormick McGuire Robinson Solomon McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Stoffer Thompson (Charlotte) Ménard Mercier Vautour Wasylycia-Leis Mifflin Milliken Wayne—33 Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Mills (Red Deer) Minna Mitchell Morrison Murray NAYS Myers Nault Normand Nunziata Members Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Ablonczy Adams Paradis Patry Alcock Anders Anderson Assad Peric Peterson Assadourian Augustine Pettigrew Phinney Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Bailey Baker Pillitteri Plamondon Bakopanos Barnes Pratt Provenzano Beaumier Bélair Ramsay Redman Bélanger Bellehumeur Reed Reynolds Bellemare Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Richardson Ritz Bertrand Bevilacqua Robillard Rocheleau Bigras Blondin-Andrew Rock Saada Bonin Bonwick Sauvageau Schmidt Boudria Bradshaw Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Sekora Serré Brien Brown Shepherd Solberg Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia St. Denis Steckle Cadman Calder Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Cannis Canuel St-Hilaire Stinson Caplan Carroll St-Julien Strahl Casson Catterall Szabo Telegdi Cauchon Chamberlain Thibeault Thompson (Wild Rose) Chan Charbonneau Torsney Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Ur Valeri Copps Crête Vanclief Vellacott Cullen Cummins Venne Wappel de Savoye Debien Whelan White (Langley—Abbotsford) Desrochers DeVillers Wilfert Williams —224 Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Duncan Easter PAIRED MEMBERS Eggleton Epp Finlay Folco Fontana Forseth Fournier Fry Gagliano Gagnon Alarie Asselin Gauthier Gilmour Bennett Collenette Girard-Bujold Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Goodale Gouk Gallaway Guimond Graham Gray (Windsor West) Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Grewal Perron Proud May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7165

Government Orders

Nystrom Obhrai Proctor Ramsay D (1900 ) Reynolds Riis Ritz Robinson The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 55, 57, 58, 97 and 103 Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Solomon defeated. I also declare Motions Nos. 98 to 102 and Motions Stinson Stoffer Nos. 104 to 106 defeated. Strahl Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Vautour The next question is on Motion No. 16. Vellacott Wasylycia-Leis Wayne White (Langley—Abbotsford) Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, Williams—79 I would propose you seek unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting NAYS nay. Members The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Adams Alcock Some hon. members: Agreed. Anderson Assad Assadourian Augustine Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Saint-Jean) yes to this motion. Baker Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier [Translation] Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur Bellemare Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bertrand Quebecois will vote against this motion. Bevilacqua Bigras Blondin-Andrew Bonin [English] Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Brien Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on Brown Bryden Bulte Byrne this motion. Caccia Calder Cannis Canuel [Translation] Caplan Carroll Catterall Cauchon Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) vote yea. Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi [English] Copps Crête Cullen de Savoye Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would require Debien Desrochers board members to be skilled in the management of investments and DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion Discepola I would vote yea. Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Duhamel (The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on Dumas Easter the following division:) Eggleton Finlay Folco Fontana Fournier Fry (Division No. 164) Gagliano Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold YEAS Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Members Goodale Graham Gray (Windsor West) Grose Ablonczy Anders Guarnieri Guay Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Harb Harvard Bailey Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Hubbard Ianno Borotsik Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Iftody Jackson Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brison Jennings Jordan Cadman Casson Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Chatters Cummins Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Davies Desjarlais Dockrill Duncan Knutson Kraft Sloan Earle Epp Lalonde Lastewka Forseth Gilmour Laurin Lavigne Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Goldring Lee Lefebvre Gouk Grewal Leung Lincoln Grey (Edmonton North) Hardy Longfield Loubier Harris Hart MacAulay Mahoney Harvey Herron Malhi Maloney Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Manley Marceau Jaffer Johnston Marchand Marchi Jones Keddy (South Shore) Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Massé McCormick Konrad Laliberte McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Lill Lunn McWhinney Ménard MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Mercier Mifflin Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Minna Mitchell Mayfield McDonough Murray Myers Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Nault Normand Muise Nunziata O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) 7166 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders O’Reilly Pagtakhan [Translation] Paradis Patry Peric Peterson Pettigrew Phinney Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, my opinion is different, Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Plamondon and we will be voting nay. Pratt Provenzano Redman Reed [English] Richardson Robillard Rocheleau Rock Saada Sauvageau Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote no Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré Shepherd to this motion. St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) [Translation] St-Hilaire St-Julien Szabo Telegdi Thibeault Torsney Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will be Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Ur voting nay. Valeri Vanclief Venne Wappel [English] Whelan Wilfert—178 Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion allows the PAIRED MEMBERS provinces to opt out, take the cash and run and I would vote no to the motion.

Alarie Asselin D (1905 ) Bennett Collenette Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gallaway Guimond (The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was negatived on Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Perron Proud the following division:)

The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 defeated. (Division No. 165)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find YEAS consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following Members items: Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 65, 66, 70 and Ablonczy Anders Bailey Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 107. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a Epp Forseth fashion? Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Harris Hart Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Some hon. members: Agreed. Hoeppner Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Konrad [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 164] Lunn Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Mayfield Mills (Red Deer) Morrison The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, Obhrai Ramsay 56, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75 and 107 defeated. Reynolds Ritz Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson The next question is on Motion No. 67. Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams —45 [Translation] NAYS Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Members unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous Adams Alcock motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the Anderson Assad Assadourian Augustine House, with Liberal members voting nay. Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Baker Bakopanos [English] Barnes Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur Bellemare The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Some hon. members: Agreed. Bigras Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Borotsik Boudria Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, this is a good motion. The Bradshaw Brien Brison Brown Reform Party will vote yes to this motion. Bryden May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7167

Government Orders

Bulte Byrne Szabo Telegdi Caccia Calder Thibeault Thompson (Charlotte) Cannis Canuel Torsney Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Caplan Carroll Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri Catterall Cauchon Vanclief Vautour Chamberlain Chan Venne Wappel Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Wasylycia-Leis Wayne Clouthier Coderre Whelan Wilfert —212 Cohen Comuzzi Copps Crête Cullen Davies PAIRED MEMBERS de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers DeVillers Dhaliwal Alarie Asselin Dion Discepola Bennett Collenette Dockrill Dromisky Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Drouin Duceppe Gallaway Guimond Duhamel Dumas Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Earle Easter Perron Proud Eggleton Finlay Folco Fontana The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 67 defeated. Fournier Fry Gagliano Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold The next question is on Motion No. 68. Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Gray (Windsor West) Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Grose Guarnieri consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No. 71 Guay Harb Hardy Harvard as well. Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in such Iftody Jackson Jennings Jones a fashion? Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) Some hon. members: Agreed. Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lalonde [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 165] Lastewka Laurin Lavigne Lee Lefebvre Leung The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 71 defeated. Lill Lincoln Longfield Loubier MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Mahoney Malhi results of that would also defeat Motion No. 68. Maloney Mancini Manley Marceau Marchand Marchi The Speaker: Motion No. 68 will be voted upon separately. Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé The question then will be on Motion No. 68. Matthews McCormick McDonough McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I Ménard Mercier would propose that you seek unanimous consent that the members Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on Mitchell Muise the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting Murray Myers Nault Normand nay. Nunziata Nystrom O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Peric Peterson Pettigrew Some hon. members: Agreed. Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Plamondon Pratt Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Proctor Provenzano are voting nay unless they indicate otherwise. Redman Reed Richardson Riis Robillard Robinson Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting Motion Rocheleau Rock No. 68. Saada Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré Shepherd [Translation] Solomon St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) St-Hilaire Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc St-Julien Stoffer Quebecois will vote yea on this motion. 7168 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders [English] Bonin Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present Brown Bryden Bulte Byrne vote yes to this motion. Caccia Cadman Calder Cannis [Translation] Caplan Carroll Casson Catterall Cauchon Chamberlain Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Chan Charbonneau Chatters Clouthier yea to this motion. Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps [English] Cullen Cummins DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Duncan would vote yes to this worthy motion from the hon. member for Easter Eggleton Kamloops. Epp Finlay Folco Fontana Forseth Fry (The House divided on Motion No. 68, which was negatived on Gagliano Gilmour the following division:) Godfrey Goldring Goodale Gouk Graham Gray (Windsor West) (Division No. 166) Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri Harb Harris YEAS Hart Harvard Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Members Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Jaffer Jennings Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bellehumeur Johnston Jordan Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Bigras Borotsik Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Brien Brison Knutson Konrad Canuel Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête Davies Kraft Sloan Lastewka de Savoye Debien Lavigne Lee Desjarlais Desrochers Leung Lincoln Dockrill Duceppe Longfield Lunn Dumas Earle MacAulay Mahoney Fournier Gagnon Malhi Maloney Gauthier Girard-Bujold Manley Marchi Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Mark Marleau Guay Hardy Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé Harvey Herron Mayfield McCormick Jones Keddy (South Shore) McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Laliberte Lalonde McWhinney Mifflin Laurin Lefebvre Lill Loubier Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Mills (Red Deer) Minna Marceau Marchand Mitchell Morrison Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Murray Myers Matthews McDonough Nault Normand Ménard Mercier Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) Muise Nunziata O’Reilly Pagtakhan Nystrom Picard (Drummond) Paradis Patry Plamondon Proctor Peric Peterson Riis Robinson Pettigrew Phinney Rocheleau Sauvageau Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Solomon St-Hilaire Pratt Provenzano Stoffer Thompson (Charlotte) Ramsay Redman Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Vautour Reed Reynolds Venne Wasylycia-Leis Richardson Ritz Wayne —72 Robillard Rock Saada Schmidt Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) NAYS Sekora Serré Shepherd Solberg Members St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Ablonczy Adams Stinson St-Julien Alcock Anders Strahl Szabo Anderson Assad Telegdi Thibeault Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bailey Thompson (Wild Rose) Torsney Baker Bakopanos Ur Valeri Barnes Beaumier Vanclief Vellacott Bélair Bélanger Wappel Whelan Bellemare Bertrand White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Williams —185 May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7169

Government Orders PAIRED MEMBERS Dockrill Duceppe Dumas Duncan Earle Epp Alarie Asselin Forseth Fournier Bennett Collenette Gagnon Gauthier Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gilmour Girard-Bujold Gallaway Guimond Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Goldring Gouk Perron Proud Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Guay Hardy The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 68 defeated. Harris Hart Harvey Herron The next question is on Motion No. 69. A vote on this motion Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner also applies to Motions Nos. 73 and 76. Jaffer Johnston Jones Keddy (South Shore) D (1910 ) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Konrad Laliberte Lalonde Laurin Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 69 I Lefebvre Lill propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted Loubier Lunn MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion Marceau Marchand now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay. Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Mayfield McDonough Ménard Mercier Some hon. members: Agreed. Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Muise Nunziata Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Nystrom Obhrai Picard (Drummond) Plamondon vote yes to this motion. Proctor Ramsay Reynolds Riis [Translation] Ritz Robinson Rocheleau Sauvageau Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Quebecois agree with this motion. Solberg Solomon St-Hilaire Stinson [English] Stoffer Strahl Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote Turp Vautour yes to this motion. Vellacott Venne Wasylycia-Leis Wayne [Translation] White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams —116 Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea to this motion. NAYS [English] Members Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of this motion. Adams Alcock Anderson Assad Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Deputy Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Baker Prime Minister has left and should not be recorded as having voted Bakopanos Barnes on this motion. Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare (The House divided on Motion No. 69, which was negatived on Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin the following division:) Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Brown (Division No. 167) Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia YEAS Calder Cannis Caplan Carroll Members Catterall Cauchon Ablonczy Anders Chamberlain Chan Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Charbonneau Clouthier Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bailey Coderre Cohen Bellehumeur Bergeron Comuzzi Copps Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Cullen DeVillers Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bigras Dhaliwal Dion Borotsik Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Discepola Dromisky Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Drouin Duhamel Brison Cadman Easter Eggleton Canuel Casson Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Finlay Folco Crête Cummins Fontana Fry Davies de Savoye Gagliano Godfrey Debien Desjarlais Goodale Graham Desrochers Grose Guarnieri 7170 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders Harb Harvard Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who Jennings Jordan voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay. Knutson Kraft Sloan Lastewka Lavigne Lee Leung The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Lincoln Longfield MacAulay Mahoney Malhi Maloney Some hon. members: Agreed. Manley Marchi Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé McCormick Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) vote no to this motion. McWhinney Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna Mitchell [Translation] Murray Myers Nault Normand O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Peric Quebecois disagree to this motion. Peterson Pettigrew Phinney Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Pratt [English] Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson Robillard Rock Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote in favour Saada Scott (Fredericton) of this motion. Sekora Serré Shepherd St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) [Translation] Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien Szabo Telegdi Thibeault Torsney Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Ur Valeri Vanclief Wappel nay to this motion. Whelan Wilfert —140 [English]

PAIRED MEMBERS Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of this motion.

Alarie Asselin D (1915 ) Bennett Collenette Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gallaway Guimond (The House divided on Motion No. 72, which was negatived on Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Perron Proud the following division:) (Division No. 168) The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 69 defeated. I also declare Motions Nos. 73 and 76 defeated. YEAS

Members Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Davies consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following Desjarlais Dockrill Earle Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) items: Motions Nos. 78, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 94 and 95. Hardy Laliberte Lill Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough Nunziata Nystrom The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a Proctor Riis fashion? Robinson Solomon Stoffer Vautour Wasylycia-Leis—21

Some hon. members: Agreed. NAYS

Members [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 167] Ablonczy Adams Alcock Anders Anderson Assad The Speaker: Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85, Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) 86, 91, 92, 94 and 95 defeated. Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bailey Baker Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier Bélair Bélanger The next question is on Motion No. 72. Bellehumeur Bellemare May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7171

Government Orders

Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Peric Peterson Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Pettigrew Phinney Bertrand Bevilacqua Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Bigras Blondin-Andrew Pillitteri Plamondon Pratt Provenzano Bonin Bonwick Ramsay Redman Borotsik Boudria Reed Reynolds Bradshaw Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Richardson Ritz Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Robillard Rocheleau Brison Brown Rock Saada Bryden Bulte Sauvageau Schmidt Byrne Caccia Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) Cadman Calder Sekora Serré Shepherd Solberg Cannis Canuel St. Denis Steckle Caplan Carroll Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Casson Catterall St-Hilaire Stinson Cauchon Chamberlain St-Julien Strahl Chan Charbonneau Szabo Telegdi Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Thibeault Thompson (Charlotte) Clouthier Coderre Thompson (Wild Rose) Torsney Cohen Comuzzi Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Copps Crête Turp Ur Valeri Vanclief Cullen Cummins Vellacott Venne de Savoye Debien Wappel Wayne Desrochers DeVillers Whelan White (Langley—Abbotsford) Dhaliwal Dion Wilfert Williams—235 Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Duhamel Dumas PAIRED MEMBERS Duncan Easter Eggleton Epp Finlay Folco Fontana Forseth Alarie Asselin Fournier Fry Bennett Collenette Gagliano Gagnon Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Gauthier Gilmour Gallaway Guimond Girard-Bujold Godfrey Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring Perron Proud Goodale Gouk Graham Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Grose The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 72 defeated. The next Guarnieri Guay question is on Motions Nos. 80 and 81. Harb Harris Hart Harvard Harvey Herron Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner consent in the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson the following: Motions Nos. 80 and 81. Jaffer Jennings Johnston Jones Jordan Karetak-Lindell The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in such Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) a fashion? Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Konrad Some hon. members: Agreed. Kraft Sloan Lalonde Lastewka Laurin Lavigne Lee Lefebvre Leung [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 168] Lincoln Longfield Loubier Lunn MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 80 and 81 defeated. The Mahoney Malhi next question is on Motion No. 82. Maloney Manley Marceau Marchand Marchi Mark Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, Marleau Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé Matthews Mayfield who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on McCormick McGuire the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay. McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Ménard Mercier Mifflin Milliken The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Mills (Red Deer) Minna Mitchell Morrison Muise Some hon. members: Agreed. Murray Myers Nault Normand Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members Paradis Patry present vote no to this motion. 7172 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders [Translation] Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps Cullen Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Cummins Davies Quebecois are in favour of this motion. Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion [English] Discepola Dockrill Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Duncan Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote Earle Easter no. Eggleton Epp Finlay Folco Fontana Forseth [Translation] Fry Gagliano Gilmour Godfrey Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Goldring nay to this motion. Goodale Gouk Graham Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Grose [English] Guarnieri Harb Hardy Harris Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would delete the Hart Harvard Harvey Herron word Canada from the name of the Canada child tax benefit act and Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner I would vote no. Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson (The House divided Motion No. 82, which was negatived on the Jaffer Jennings Johnston Jones following division:) Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) (Division No. 169) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Konrad YEAS Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka Lavigne Members Lee Leung Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bellehumeur Lill Lincoln Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Longfield Lunn Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bigras MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Brien Canuel Mahoney Malhi Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête Maloney Mancini de Savoye Debien Desrochers Duceppe Manley Marchi Dumas Fournier Mark Marleau Gagnon Gauthier Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Girard-Bujold Godin (Châteauguay) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé Guay Lalonde Matthews Mayfield Laurin Lefebvre McCormick McDonough Loubier Marceau McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Marchand Ménard McWhinney Mifflin Mercier Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Rocheleau Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Sauvageau St-Hilaire Mills (Red Deer) Minna Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Mitchell Morrison Turp Venne —37 Muise Murray Myers Nault Normand Nunziata NAYS Nystrom Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Members Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Peric Ablonczy Adams Alcock Anders Peterson Pettigrew Anderson Assad Phinney Pickard (Kent—Essex) Assadourian Augustine Pillitteri Pratt Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Proctor Provenzano Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bailey Ramsay Redman Baker Bakopanos Reed Reynolds Barnes Beaumier Richardson Riis Bélair Bélanger Ritz Robillard Bellemare Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Robinson Rock Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Saada Schmidt Bonwick Borotsik Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) Boudria Bradshaw Sekora Serré Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Shepherd Solberg Brison Brown Solomon St. Denis Bryden Bulte Steckle Stewart (Brant) Byrne Caccia Stewart (Northumberland) Stinson Cadman Calder St-Julien Stoffer Cannis Caplan Carroll Casson Strahl Szabo Catterall Cauchon Telegdi Thibeault Chamberlain Chan Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Charbonneau Chatters Torsney Ur May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7173

Government Orders Valeri Vanclief (The House divided on Motion No. 87, which was negatived on Vautour Vellacott Wappel Wasylycia-Leis the following division:) Wayne Whelan White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Williams —219 (Division No. 170) PAIRED MEMBERS YEAS Alarie Asselin Bennett Collenette Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Members Gallaway Guimond Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Perron Proud Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bigras Brien The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 82 defeated. The next Canuel Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) question is on Motion No. 83. Crête Davies de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find Dockrill Duceppe consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No. 83. Dumas Earle Fournier Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Guay Hardy Laliberte Lalonde Some hon. members: Agreed. Laurin Lefebvre Lill Loubier Mancini Marceau [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 169.] Marchand Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough Ménard Mercier Nystrom The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 83 defeated. The Picard (Drummond) Plamondon next question is on Motion No. 87. Proctor Riis Robinson Rocheleau Sauvageau Solomon [Translation] St-Hilaire Stoffer Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Vautour Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I Venne Wasylycia-Leis—57 believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea. NAYS [English] Members

The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Ablonczy Adams Alcock Anders Some hon. members: Agreed. Anderson Assad Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members Bailey Baker Bakopanos Barnes present vote no to this motion. Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare [Translation] Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Borotsik Boudria Bradshaw Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Quebecois vote yea to this motion. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brison Brown Bryden [English] Bulte Byrne Caccia Cadman Calder Cannis Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote Caplan Carroll Casson Catterall yes to this motion. Cauchon Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau [Translation] Chatters Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Cullen Cummins DeVillers Dhaliwal nay to this motion. Dion Discepola Dromisky Drouin [English] Duhamel Duncan Easter Eggleton Epp Finlay Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Folco Fontana Forseth Fry York South—Weston I would vote no to this motion. Gagliano Gilmour 7174 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders Godfrey Goldring The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 87 defeated. The next Goodale Gouk Graham Grewal question is on Motion No. 89. Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri Harb Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you Harris Hart seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous Harvard Harvey motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Hubbard with Liberal members voting nay. Ianno Iftody Jackson Jaffer The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Jennings Johnston Jones Jordan D (1920 ) Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Some hon. members: Agreed. Kerpan Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Konrad Kraft Sloan Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Lastewka Lavigne vote yes to this motion. Lee Leung Lincoln Longfield [Translation] Lunn MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mahoney Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Malhi Maloney Manley Marchi Quebecois are against this motion. Mark Marleau Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (LaSalle—Émard) [English] Massé Matthews Mayfield McCormick Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote no McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) to this motion. McWhinney Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) [Translation] Mills (Red Deer) Minna Mitchell Morrison Muise Murray Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Myers Nault yes to this motion. Normand Nunziata Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) [English] O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Peric Peterson Pettigrew Phinney York South—Weston, I would vote in favour of this motion. Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Pratt Provenzano (The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived on Ramsay Redman the following division:) Reed Reynolds Richardson Ritz (Division No. 171) Robillard Rock Saada Schmidt Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) YEAS Sekora Serré Members Shepherd Solberg St. Denis Steckle Ablonczy Anders Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bailey Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Borotsik Stinson St-Julien Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Strahl Szabo Brison Cadman Telegdi Thibeault Casson Chatters Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Cummins Duncan Torsney Ur Epp Forseth Gilmour Goldring Valeri Vanclief Gouk Grewal Vellacott Wappel Grey (Edmonton North) Harris Wayne Whelan Hart Harvey White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Williams —199 Hoeppner Jaffer Johnston Jones Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Konrad Lunn MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) PAIRED MEMBERS Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Matthews Mayfield Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Muise Nunziata Obhrai Ramsay Alarie Asselin Reynolds Ritz Bennett Collenette Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Strahl Thompson (Charlotte) Gallaway Guimond Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Wayne White (Langley—Abbotsford) Perron Proud Williams—59 May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7175

Government Orders NAYS Reed Richardson Riis Robillard Robinson Rocheleau Members Rock Saada Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré Adams Alcock Shepherd Solomon Anderson Assad St. Denis Steckle Assadourian Augustine Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) St-Hilaire St-Julien Bachand (Saint-Jean) Baker Stoffer Szabo Bakopanos Barnes Telegdi Thibeault Beaumier Bélair Torsney Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Bélanger Bellehumeur Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Bellemare Bergeron Ur Valeri Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Vanclief Vautour Bertrand Bevilacqua Venne Wappel Bigras Blondin-Andrew Wasylycia-Leis Whelan Bonin Bonwick Wilfert—197 Boudria Bradshaw Brien Brown Bryden Bulte PAIRED MEMBERS Byrne Caccia Calder Cannis Canuel Caplan Carroll Catterall Alarie Asselin Cauchon Chamberlain Bennett Collenette Chan Charbonneau Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Clouthier Gallaway Guimond Coderre Cohen Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Perron Proud Comuzzi Copps Crête Cullen Davies de Savoye The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 89 defeated. The next Debien Desjarlais Desrochers DeVillers question is on Motion No. 93. Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Dockrill Dromisky Drouin Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you Duceppe Duhamel seek consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton No. 93. Finlay Folco Fontana Fournier Fry Gagliano The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Gagnon Gauthier Girard-Bujold Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Some hon. members: Agreed. Goodale Graham Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb [Editor’s Note: See list under Division No. 171] Hardy Harvard Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 93 defeated. The Jennings Jordan next question is on Motion No. 96. Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you Laliberte Lalonde Lastewka Laurin seek the unanimous consent of the House that members who voted Lavigne Lee on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion Lefebvre Leung Lill Lincoln now before the House with Liberals voting no. Longfield Loubier MacAulay Mahoney Malhi Maloney The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Mancini Manley Marceau Marchand Marchi Marleau Some hon. members: Agreed. Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé McCormick McDonough McGuire Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney vote no to this motion. Ménard Mercier Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna [Translation] Mitchell Murray Myers Nault Normand Nystrom Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Quebecois are in favour of this motion. Patry Peric Peterson Pettigrew [English] Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Plamondon Pratt Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party mem- Proctor Provenzano Redman bers present vote yes to this motion. 7176 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders [Translation] Caccia Cadman Calder Cannis Caplan Carroll Casson Catterall Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Cauchon Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau yea to this motion. Chatters Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps [English] Cullen Cummins DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Duncan York South—Weston, I would support this motion. Easter Eggleton Epp Finlay Folco Fontana (The House divided on Motion No. 96, which was negatived on Forseth Fry Gagliano Gilmour the following division:) Godfrey Goldring Goodale Gouk Graham Grewal (Division No. 172) Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri Harb Harris Hart Harvard Hill (Prince George—Peace River) YEAS Hoeppner Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson Jaffer Members Jennings Johnston Jordan Karetak-Lindell Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bellehumeur Kerpan Keyes Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Konrad Kraft Sloan Bigras Borotsik Lastewka Lavigne Brien Brison Lee Leung Canuel Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Lincoln Longfield Crête Davies Lunn MacAulay de Savoye Debien Mahoney Malhi Desjarlais Desrochers Maloney Manley Dockrill Duceppe Marchi Mark Dumas Earle Marleau Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Fournier Gagnon Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé Gauthier Girard-Bujold Mayfield McCormick Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Guay Hardy McWhinney Mifflin Harvey Herron Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Jones Keddy (South Shore) Mills (Red Deer) Minna Laliberte Lalonde Mitchell Morrison Laurin Lefebvre Murray Myers Lill Loubier Nault Normand MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) Marceau Marchand O’Reilly Pagtakhan Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Paradis Patry McDonough Ménard Peric Peterson Mercier Muise Pettigrew Phinney Nunziata Nystrom Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt Provenzano Proctor Riis Ramsay Redman Robinson Rocheleau Reed Reynolds Sauvageau Solomon Richardson Ritz St-Hilaire Stoffer Robillard Rock Thompson (Charlotte) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Saada Schmidt Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Scott (Fredericton) Scott (Skeena) Vautour Venne Sekora Serré Wasylycia-Leis Wayne —71 Shepherd Solberg St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Stinson St-Julien NAYS Strahl Szabo Telegdi Thibeault Thompson (Wild Rose) Torsney Members Ur Valeri Vanclief Vellacott Ablonczy Adams Wappel Whelan Alcock Anders White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Anderson Assad Williams —185 Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bailey Baker Bakopanos PAIRED MEMBERS Barnes Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Alarie Asselin Bonin Bonwick Bennett Collenette Boudria Bradshaw Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Gallaway Guimond Brown Bryden Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Bulte Byrne Perron Proud May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7177

Government Orders The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 96 defeated. Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Brown Bryden Bulte Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the Byrne Caccia bill be concurred in. Calder Cannis Caplan Carroll Catterall Cauchon [Translation] Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Clouthier Coderre Cohen Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I Comuzzi Copps believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who Cullen DeVillers voted on the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Dromisky motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea. Drouin Duhamel Easter Eggleton [English] Finlay Folco Fontana Fry Gagliano Godfrey The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Goodale Graham Grose Guarnieri Harb Harvard Some hon. members: Agreed. Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson Jennings Jordan Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we do not think the budget is Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis that good and this is the 41st time for time allocation. We are very Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) disappointed. We are going to have to vote no on both accounts. Knutson Kraft Sloan Lastewka Lavigne Lee Leung [Translation] Lincoln Longfield MacAulay Mahoney Malhi Maloney Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Manley Marchi Quebecois are against this motion. Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Massé McCormick [English] McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Mifflin Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members feel compelled Minna Mitchell Murray Myers to vote no as well. Nault Normand Nunziata O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) [Translation] O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Patry Peric Peterson Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Pettigrew Phinney nay to this motion. Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Pratt Provenzano Redman Reed [English] Richardson Robillard Rock Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this budget does Serré Shepherd not delete the GST but as far as Liberal budgets are concerned, it is St. Denis Steckle not bad and I will vote in favour. Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien Szabo Telegdi Thibeault D (1925 ) Torsney Ur Valeri Vanclief Wappel Whelan (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Wilfert —141 following division:)

(Division No. 173) NAYS

YEAS Members

Members Ablonczy Anders Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Adams Alcock Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bailey Anderson Assad Bellehumeur Bergeron Assadourian Augustine Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Baker Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bigras Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier Bélair Borotsik Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Bélanger Bellemare Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Bertrand Bevilacqua Brison Cadman Blondin-Andrew Bonin Canuel 7178 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Government Orders Casson Chatters consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête Cummins Davies passed. de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on the Dockrill Duceppe Dumas Duncan motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-19. Earle Epp Forseth Fournier Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I Gagnon Gauthier Gilmour Girard-Bujold would propose that you seek consent that members who voted on Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion Goldring Gouk now before the House with Liberal members voting yea. Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Guay Hardy Harris Hart The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion? Harvey Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Some hon. members: Agreed. Jaffer Johnston Jones Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present Konrad Laliberte vote no to this bill. Lalonde Laurin Lefebvre Lill [Translation] Loubier Lunn MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Marceau Marchand Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Quebecois are against this motion. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Mayfield McDonough Ménard Mercier [English] Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Muise Nystrom Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes to Obhrai Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Proctor this motion. Ramsay Reynolds Riis Ritz [Translation] Robinson Rocheleau Sauvageau Schmidt Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote Scott (Skeena) Solberg Solomon St-Hilaire nay to this motion. Stinson Stoffer Strahl Thompson (Charlotte) [English] Thompson (Wild Rose) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this left wing piece of Vautour Vellacott Venne Wasylycia-Leis legislation deserves to be defeated and I will vote no. Wayne White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams—115 (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) PAIRED MEMBERS (Division No. 174) YEAS Members Alarie Asselin Bennett Collenette Adams Alcock Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Anderson Assad Assadourian Augustine Gallaway Guimond Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Baker Bakopanos Perron Proud Barnes Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Bonin Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Brown Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia Calder Cannis Caplan * * * Carroll Catterall Cauchon Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Clouthier Coderre Cohen Comuzzi Copps Cullen CANADA LABOUR CODE Davies Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Dion Discepola Dockrill Dromisky The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion Drouin Duhamel that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make Folco Fontana May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7179

Private Members’ Business

Fry Gagliano Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Hoeppner Jaffer Goodale Graham Johnston Jones Grose Guarnieri Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Harb Hardy Kerpan Konrad Lalonde Laurin Harvard Hubbard Lefebvre Loubier Ianno Iftody Lunn MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Jackson Jennings Marceau Marchand Jordan Karetak-Lindell Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Karygiannis Keyes Matthews Mayfield Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Ménard Mercier Kraft Sloan Laliberte Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Lastewka Lavigne Muise Nunziata Lee Leung Obhrai Picard (Drummond) Lill Lincoln Plamondon Ramsay Longfield MacAulay Reynolds Ritz Rocheleau Sauvageau Mahoney Malhi Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Maloney Mancini Solberg St-Hilaire Manley Marchi Stinson Strahl Marleau Martin (LaSalle—Émard) Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) McCormick McDonough Turp Vellacott McGuire McLellan (Edmonton West) Venne Wayne McWhinney Mifflin White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams—96 Milliken Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) Minna Mitchell PAIRED MEMBERS Murray Myers Nault Normand Nystrom O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan Alarie Asselin Paradis Patry Bennett Collenette Peric Peterson Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Pettigrew Phinney Gallaway Guimond Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Perron Proud Pratt Proctor Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Riis Robillard Robinson Rock Saada Scott (Fredericton) (Bill read the third time and passed.) Sekora Serré Shepherd Solomon St. Denis Steckle ______Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thibeault Torsney Ur Valeri PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Vanclief Vautour Wappel Wasylycia-Leis Whelan Wilfert—160 [English]

NAYS MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION

Members The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.

Ablonczy Anders The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12, Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint-Jean) 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred Bailey Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— recorded division on Motion No. M-75 under Private Members’ Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Business. Bigras Borotsik Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Brison As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting Cadman Canuel with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the Casson Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then Cummins de Savoye those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House Debien Desrochers will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the Duceppe Dumas Duncan Epp same order. Forseth Fournier Gagnon Gauthier The question is on the motion. Gilmour Girard-Bujold Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring Gouk Grewal D (1935) Grey (Edmonton North) Guay Harris Hart Harvey Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote: 7180 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my name Fontana Forseth Fry Gagliano to those supporting the motion. Gilmour Godfrey Goldring Gouk Graham Grewal (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived to on Grey (Edmonton North) Grose the following division:) Guarnieri Harb Harris Hart Harvard Harvey (Division No. 175) Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Hubbard Jackson Jaffer Johnston Jones YEAS Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Members Kerpan Keyes Knutson Konrad Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Kraft Sloan Lastewka Bellehumeur Bergeron Lee Leung Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bigras Brien Longfield Lunn Caccia Canuel MacAulay MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Mahoney Malhi Crête Davies Maloney Manley de Savoye Debien Mark Marleau Desjarlais Desrochers Dockrill Duceppe Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Massé Dumas Duncan Matthews Mayfield Earle Folco McCormick McGuire Fournier Gagnon McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Gauthier Girard-Bujold Mifflin Mills (Red Deer) Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Minna Mitchell Guay Hardy Jennings Laliberte Morrison Muise Lalonde Laurin Murray Myers Lavigne Lefebvre Nault Normand Lill Lincoln Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) Loubier Mancini O’Reilly Pagtakhan Marceau Marchand Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough Paradis Patry Ménard Mercier Pettigrew Phinney Nunziata Nystrom Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt Provenzano Proctor Riis Ramsay Redman Robinson Rocheleau Sauvageau Solomon Reed Reynolds St-Hilaire Stinson Richardson Ritz Stoffer Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Robillard Rock Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Schmidt Scott (Fredericton) Vautour Venne Scott (Skeena) Sekora Wasylycia-Leis—66 Serré Shepherd Solberg St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Brant) NAYS Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien Strahl Szabo Members Telegdi Thibeault Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Ablonczy Adams Torsney Ur Alcock Anders Anderson Assadourian Valeri Vanclief Augustine Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Vellacott Wappel Bailey Baker Wayne Whelan Bakopanos Barnes White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Bélanger Bellemare Williams—171 Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Borotsik Boudria Bradshaw Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) PAIRED MEMBERS Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brison Brown Bryden Bulte Byrne Cadman Calder Caplan Carroll Casson Catterall Alarie Asselin Cauchon Chamberlain Bennett Collenette Chatters Clouthier Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Coderre Cohen Gallaway Guimond Comuzzi Copps Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Cullen Cummins DeVillers Dion Perron Proud Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Easter Eggleton Epp Finlay The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7181

Private Members’ Business CRIMINAL CODE Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Solomon Steckle St-Hilaire The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion Stinson St-Julien that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic Stoffer Strahl Telegdi Thompson (Charlotte) manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a commit- Thompson (Wild Rose) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) tee. Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Vautour Vellacott Venne Wappel The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12, Wasylycia-Leis Wayne 1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at White (Langley—Abbotsford) Williams—134 second reading stage of Bill C-247 under Private Members’ Business. NAYS We will follow the same voting pattern as we did the last time. Members D (1945) Adams Alcock Anderson Augustine (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Baker following division:) Bakopanos Barnes Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bertrand (Division No. 176) Bevilacqua Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick YEAS Boudria Bradshaw Brown Bulte Members Byrne Caplan Carroll Catterall Ablonczy Anders Cauchon Chamberlain Assadourian Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Charbonneau Clouthier Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint-Jean) Coderre Cohen Bailey Bellehumeur Comuzzi Copps Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé— Cullen DeVillers Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Dion Discepola Bigras Borotsik Dromisky Drouin Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brien Brison Duhamel Easter Bryden Caccia Eggleton Finlay Cadman Calder Folco Fontana Canuel Casson Fry Gagliano Chatters Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Godfrey Graham Crête Cummins Grose Harb Davies de Savoye Harvard Hubbard Debien Desjarlais Jackson Jennings Desrochers Dockrill Jordan Karetak-Lindell Duceppe Dumas Keyes Kraft Sloan Duncan Earle Lastewka Leung Epp Forseth MacAulay Mahoney Fournier Gagnon Malhi Maloney Gauthier Gilmour Marleau Massé Girard-Bujold Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) McCormick McLellan (Edmonton West) Godin (Châteauguay) Goldring McWhinney Mifflin Gouk Grewal Minna Mitchell Grey (Edmonton North) Guarnieri Murray Myers Guay Hardy Nault Normand Harris Hart Pagtakhan Patry Harvey Herron Pettigrew Phinney Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Pickard (Kent—Essex) Pillitteri Jaffer Johnston Jones Karygiannis Pratt Redman Keddy (South Shore) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Reed Richardson Kerpan Knutson Robillard Rock Konrad Laliberte Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Lalonde Laurin Shepherd St. Denis Lavigne Lee Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Lefebvre Lill Szabo Torsney Lincoln Longfield Ur Valeri Loubier Lunn Vanclief Whelan MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) Mancini Wilfert—101 Marceau Marchand Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Mayfield McDonough PAIRED MEMBERS Ménard Mercier Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Muise Nunziata Nystrom Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Alarie Asselin Proctor Provenzano Bennett Collenette Ramsay Reynolds Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Riis Ritz Gallaway Guimond Robinson Rocheleau Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Sauvageau Perron Proud 7182 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Private Members’ Business The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill Konrad Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health. Lavigne Lee Leung Lill (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) Lincoln Longfield Lunn MacAulay Mahoney Malhi Maloney Mancini * * * Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Massé Matthews McCormick D (1950) McDonough McLellan (Edmonton West) McWhinney Mifflin Mills (Red Deer) Minna NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM Mitchell Muise Murray Myers The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amend- Nault Normand Nunziata Nystrom ment. Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) O’Reilly Pagtakhan The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House Paradis Pettigrew Phinney Pillitteri will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Pratt Proctor Motion No. 261. Provenzano Ramsay Redman Richardson Riis Ritz The vote is on the amendment. Robillard Robinson Rock Schmidt D (2000) Scott (Fredericton) Sekora Serré Shepherd Solberg Solomon (The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Northumberland) St-Julien the following division:) Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thibeault (Division No. 177) Thompson (Charlotte) Torsney Ur Vanclief Vautour Vellacott YEAS Wappel Wasylycia-Leis Wilfert Williams—170 Members Adams Alcock Anderson Assadourian Augustine Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) NAYS Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Bailey Baker Bakopanos Barnes Members Beaumier Bellemare Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bertrand Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bergeron Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Bonwick Borotsik Bigras Brien Boudria Bradshaw Canuel Chatters Brison Brown Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Crête Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia de Savoye Debien Cadman Calder Desrochers Duceppe Caplan Carroll Dumas Fournier Casson Catterall Gagnon Gauthier Cauchon Chamberlain Gilmour Girard-Bujold Charbonneau Clouthier Godin (Châteauguay) Guay Coderre Cohen Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Comuzzi Copps Kerpan Laurin Cullen Cummins Lefebvre Loubier Davies Desjarlais Marceau Marchand DeVillers Dion Ménard Mercier Discepola Dockrill Morrison Picard (Drummond) Dromisky Drouin Plamondon Reynolds Duhamel Duncan Earle Easter Rocheleau Sauvageau Eggleton Epp Scott (Skeena) St-Hilaire Finlay Folco Stinson Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Fontana Forseth Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Turp Fry Gagliano Venne —44 Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Goldring Graham Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Grose Guarnieri PAIRED MEMBERS Harb Hardy Harvard Harvey Herron Hoeppner Hubbard Jackson Jaffer Jennings Johnston Jones Alarie Asselin Jordan Karetak-Lindell Bennett Collenette Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore) Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Keyes Knutson Gallaway Guimond May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7183

Private Members’ Business

Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) McDonough McLellan (Edmonton West) Perron Proud McWhinney Mifflin Mills (Red Deer) Minna Mitchell Morrison The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried. Muise Murray Myers Nault Nunziata Obhrai O’Brien (London—Fanshawe) The next question is on the motion as amended. O’Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Pettigrew D Phinney Pillitteri (2005) Pratt Proctor Provenzano Ramsay Redman Reynolds (The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was Richardson Riis agreed to on the following division:) Ritz Robillard Robinson Rock Schmidt Scott (Fredericton) (Division No. 178) Scott (Skeena) Sekora Serré Shepherd Solberg Solomon YEAS St. Denis Steckle Stewart (Northumberland) Stinson St-Julien Stoffer Members Strahl Szabo Ablonczy Adams Telegdi Thibeault Alcock Anders Thompson (Charlotte) Thompson (Wild Rose) Anderson Assadourian Torsney Ur Augustine Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Vanclief Vautour Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska) Vellacott Wappel Bailey Baker Bakopanos Barnes Wasylycia-Leis Whelan Beaumier Bélanger White (Langley—Abbotsford) Wilfert Bellemare Bertrand Williams—186 Blondin-Andrew Bonin Bonwick Borotsik Boudria Bradshaw Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Brison Brown NAYS Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia Members Cadman Calder Caplan Carroll Casson Catterall Bachand (Saint-Jean) Bergeron Cauchon Chamberlain Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok) Charbonneau Chatters Clouthier Coderre Bigras Brien Cohen Comuzzi Canuel Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic) Copps Cullen Crête de Savoye Cummins Davies Debien Desrochers Desjarlais DeVillers Duceppe Dumas Dion Discepola Fournier Gagnon Dockrill Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Gauthier Girard-Bujold Duncan Earle Godin (Châteauguay) Guay Easter Eggleton Laurin Lefebvre Epp Finlay Loubier Marceau Folco Fontana Marchand Ménard Forseth Fry Gagliano Gilmour Mercier Picard (Drummond) Godfrey Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) Plamondon Rocheleau Goldring Graham Sauvageau St-Hilaire Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) Grose Guarnieri Turp Venne —35 Harb Hardy

Harris Hart Harvard Harvey Herron Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Hoeppner Hubbard Jackson Jaffer PAIRED MEMBERS Jennings Johnston Jones Jordan Karetak-Lindell Karygiannis Kenney (Calgary-Sud-Est) Kerpan Keyes Knutson Konrad Kraft Sloan Alarie Asselin Laliberte Lastewka Bennett Collenette Lavigne Lee Dalphond-Guiral Finestone Leung Lill Gallaway Guimond Lincoln Longfield Lebel McKay (Scarborough East) Lunn MacAulay Mahoney Malhi Perron Proud Maloney Mancini Mark Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Mayfield McCormick The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried. 7184 COMMONS DEBATES May 25, 1998

Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS We are looking for a compensation package for all those victims outside the prescribed area of 1986 to 1990. We want victims before and after compensated.

D (2010) Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when [English] the ministers of health made the announcement on March 27 on how the various governments of Canada would be approaching the A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed issue of hepatitis C, they did so together sitting at the same table to have been moved with one another and with people who are affected by the virus. They did so knowing that some people would not be happy. They sat across from these people, faced them and answered their HEPATITIS C questions.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I am D (2015) pleased that I will have a little time tonight to continue my crusade on the hepatitis C story. I do not have to remind the House that it is The public wants governments to listen to what peoples’ a very heart wrenching story. Many thousands of Canadians are thoughts are on these issues and has asked that we take responsibil- waiting to find out whether they are going to be compensated. The ity for the blood system problems of the past. We have done so. It only compensation package the federal government has agreed to is wants governments to work together and we did so. The Canadian for the innocent victims between the years 1986 and 1990. public prefers that any assistance provided by governments be distributed according to need. This is what we proposed this past We on this side of the House and some of the members from the March 27. Liberal caucus believe that all victims of hepatitis C should be compensated. A group of people who through no fault of their own On May 14 health ministers met with representatives from the were infected by tainted blood prior to 1986. They will receive no Hepatitis C Society of Canada. They met and listened to the compensation. There are also victims on the other side of that date. Canadian Hemophilia Society. Health Canada officials have been We often talk about the pre-1986 victims but there are also victims speaking directly to affected members of the public who have who were infected through no fault of their own after 1990. A called into Health Canada to tell us about their daily lives, the constituent of mine has been reminding me of that. We often talk in problems they face and what they want governments to do. this House of the pre-1986 victims but there are many victims who were infected after 1990. The federal government has consistently shown that it wants to work with all involved but that not everybody involved wants to We are talking about fairness in the compensation package. work toward a real solution. We continue to do so. Canada has been selected by the United Nations as the number one country in the world. I think Canada is more generous than that in [Translation] terms of what the government is offering. We have the capacity and the financial wherewithal to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM I remind the government that we have to do something for those victims. Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témis- When we look at what we have been reading lately in the couata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois newspapers, many of us are still pretty distressed by what we are has launched a large scale offensive to bring the federal govern- hearing from the government. I was pleased today when I asked ment to review the Employment Insurance Act. We have known for that question of the health minister. He is not going to tie assistance a while that only 41 per cent of the unemployed receive benefits. and research monies into other areas of legitimate health concern in this country as was reported by one of our national television Today, the Bloc Quebecois released a black book on the employ- networks over the weekend. It reported that the government might ment insurance reform. This book, based on Statistics Canada’s withhold funding for breast cancer research and funding for the figures, confirms that only 26 per cent of unemployed young AIDS strategy. That is not the case at all. The health minister told people receive benefits. This is totally unacceptable. The govern- me today there will be no change in the funding of those two areas ment must do something about this. and other areas. This black book on employment insurance also shows that, in We are looking for more generosity on the part of the Minister of 1996, out of $6 billion in cuts, $4.3 billion was due to restrictions Health. We have gone after him pretty rigorously in the House and in the program, while the remaining $1.7 billion was attributable to we have to continue to keep the heat on the minister. We know labour market activity. The $4.3 billion was due to restraints in there has been some progress on behalf of some of the provinces. eligibility, the duration of benefits and the amounts paid. May 25, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 7185

Adjournment Debate How did we get there? The problem is that, in their latest attempt The fact is that a portion of social assistance recipients has to overhaul the EI system, the Liberals were obsessed with fighting always been persons who either did not qualify or who exhausted the deficit. All the government wanted to do was find ways to their EI benefits. Contrary to the hon. member’s statement, our last accumulate as much money as possible at the expense of society’s EI reform was precisely about trying to help these unemployed most disadvantaged, the people who struggle to make ends meet. individuals back into the workforce.

The government must go back and abolish the intensity rule, D (2020 ) which penalizes seasonal workers. It must reduce the number of hours required in a first job. We must ensure that we have all the The employment insurance reform brought forth by the govern- information needed to correct this reform, which creates social ment included a number of bold new measures to modernize the iniquity and also has the unfortunate effect of lagging behind system and to ensure it could better help Canadians face the society and the labour market. challenges of our changing economy and help them find and keep jobs. The government has not yet decided what to do about indepen- dent workers. It does not know exactly how to adapt to the new Rather than making Canadians dependent on passive income conditions of precarious employment. It is forcing everyone to pay support for as long as possible as the member and his party would contributions from the first hour, but the end result is that many like, we choose to invest EI dollars in new measures to help people, 74% of young people, are contributing, but not getting the Canadians return to work as quickly as possible. benefits. What is so innovative is that we have broadened eligibility for When will the federal government finally decide to review the these employment measures so that all Canadians who received EI Employment Insurance Act and give it back its true purpose of or UI in the last three years can benefit from them as can people ensuring a decent income between jobs for people who are who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five unemployed? years.

[English] To further build on this innovation, the Government of Canada has negotiated labour market development agreements with nearly Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of all provincial and territorial governments for the delivery of these Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the active measures. employment insurance system is about supporting individuals who have an attachment to the labour force and who need temporary The Government of Quebec will receive $2.7 billion over five assistance before getting back into the workforce. years—

Despite the member’s claims that he has made in the past and The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt again tonight, the fact is that we do not want individuals moving the parliamentary secretary. from EI to social assistance. We want them to move from EI into the workforce. [Translation]

Let us set the record straight. Since March 1997 social assistance The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been case loads have declined in all provinces. In the member’s province adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow of Quebec the most recent figures show 436,200 households were at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). on social assistance, the lowest number of cases since January 1993. (The House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

Monday, May 25, 1998

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Missing Children Day Mrs. Jennings...... 7112 National Head Start Program Motion ...... 7091 Head Start Program Mr. Adams...... 7091 Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7112 Motion ...... 7091 David Levine (Motion agreed to) ...... 7091 Mr. Plamondon...... 7112 Mr. Grewal...... 7091 Ireland Mr. Brison...... 7092 Mr. O’Brien (London—Fanshawe)...... 7113 Ms. Phinney...... 7094 Mr. Loubier...... 7095 Missing Children Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst)...... 7096 Mrs. Dockrill...... 7113 Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7097 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Mr. Knutson...... 7097 Mr. Discepola...... 7113 Mr. Casson...... 7098 Mr. Stoffer...... 7099 Quebec Flag Amendment ...... 7099 Mrs. Tremblay...... 7113 Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7099 Yarmouth Ferry Service Divisions deemed demanded and deferred ...... 7100 Mr. Muise...... 7113 FOREX Plant GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Bertrand...... 7114 Budget Implementation Act, 1998 Bill C–36—Time Allocation Motion ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Mr. Boudria...... 7100 Hepatitis C Motion agreed to...... 7101 Mr. Hill (Macleod)...... 7114 Mr. Duceppe...... 7101 Mr. Gray...... 7114 Report stage Mr. Hill (Macleod)...... 7114 Bill C–36 ...... 7101 Mr. Rock...... 7114 Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic)...... 7101 Mr. Hill (Macleod)...... 7114 Mr. Lunn...... 7102 Mr. Gray...... 7114 Mrs. Debien...... 7103 Miss Grey...... 7114 Mr. Stoffer...... 7104 Mr. Rock...... 7115 Mr. Bonwick...... 7106 Miss Grey...... 7115 Mr. Brison...... 7107 Mr. Rock...... 7115 Mr. Hill (Prince George—Peace River)...... 7107 Employment Insurance Mr. Bonwick...... 7108 Mr. Duceppe...... 7115 Mr. Hill (Prince George—Peace River)...... 7108 Mr. Pettigrew...... 7115 Mrs. Lalonde...... 7109 Mr. Duceppe...... 7115 Mr. Dumas...... 7110 Mr. Pettigrew...... 7115 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7115 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mr. Pettigrew...... 7115 Algonguin Secondary School in North Bay Mrs. Gagnon...... 7116 Mr. Bélanger...... 7110 Mr. Pettigrew...... 7116 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7116 Oliver, B.C. Mr. Pettigrew...... 7116 Mr. Gouk...... 7111 Health Dr. Russell McDonald Ms. McDonough...... 7116 Mr. Finlay...... 7111 Mr. Rock...... 7116 APEC Ms. McDonough...... 7116 ...... Ms. Leung...... 7111 Mr. Rock 7116 Notemakers Somalia Inquiry Mr. MacKay...... 7116 Mr. Easter...... 7111 Ms. McLellan...... 7116 Ireland Mr. MacKay...... 7116 Mr. Kenney...... 7111 Ms. McLellan...... 7117 Ecumenical Patriarch National Defence Mr. Cannis...... 7112 Mrs. Ablonczy...... 7117 Mr. Eggleton...... 7117 Hepatitis C Mrs. Ablonczy...... 7117 Mr. Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska)...... 7122 Mr. Eggleton...... 7117 Mr. Rock...... 7122 Employment Insurance The Economy Mr. Crête...... 7117 Mrs. Redman...... 7122 Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard)...... 7117 Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard)...... 7122 Mr. Crête...... 7117 Fisheries Mr. Pettigrew...... 7117 Mr. Lunn...... 7122 National Defence Mr. Anderson...... 7123 Mr. Goldring...... 7118 Canadian Armed Forces Mr. Eggleton...... 7118 Ms. St–Hilaire...... 7123 Mr. Goldring...... 7118 Mr. Eggleton...... 7123 Mr. Eggleton...... 7118 Presence in Gallery David Levine The Speaker...... 7123 Mr. Gauthier...... 7118 Points of Order Mr. Dion...... 7118 Comments During Question Period Mr. Gauthier...... 7118 Mr. Gray...... 7123 Mr. Gray...... 7118 Mrs. Jennings...... 7123 National Defence Mr. Hart...... 7118 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Ms. McLellan...... 7119 Order in Council Appointments Mr. Hart...... 7119 Mr. Adams...... 7123 Mr. Eggleton...... 7119 Government Response to Petitions Millennium Scholarships Mr. Adams...... 7123 Mr. Tremblay...... 7119 Mr. Pettigrew...... 7119 Committees of the House Environment and Sustainable Development Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Caccia...... 7124 Mrs. Karetak–Lindell...... 7119 Bank Act Ms. Blondin–Andrew...... 7119 Bill C–407. Introduction and first reading ...... 7124 Trade Mr. Nystrom...... 7124 Mr. Strahl...... 7120 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time Mr. Gray...... 7120 and printed) ...... 7124 Mr. Strahl...... 7120 Criminal Code Mr. Gray...... 7120 Bill C–408. Introduction and first reading ...... 7124 Canadian Armed Forces Mr. Dromisky...... 7124 Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar)...... 7120 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) ...... 7124 Mr. Eggleton...... 7120 Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar)...... 7120 Petitions Mr. Eggleton...... 7120 Marriage Mr. Jackson...... 7124 Health Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7124 Mr. Thompson (Charlotte)...... 7120 Justice Mr. Rock...... 7121 Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7124 Mr. Thompson (Charlotte)...... 7121 Hepatitis C Mr. Rock...... 7121 Mr. PeriŇ ...... 7124 Science, Research and Development Fisheries Mr. Alcock...... 7121 Mr. MacKay...... 7124 Mr. Duhamel...... 7121 Kosovo Mrs. Redman...... 7125 Transitional Jobs Fund Emergency Personnel Mr. Anders...... 7121 Mr. Szabo...... 7125 Mr. Pettigrew...... 7121 Taxation Canadian Armed Forces Mr. Szabo...... 7125 Gasoline Prices Mrs. Venne...... 7121 Mr. Steckle...... 7125 Mr. Eggleton...... 7121 Marriage Fisheries Mrs. Ur...... 7125 Mr. Robinson...... 7122 Taxation Mr. Anderson...... 7122 Mr. Riis...... 7125 Pensions Motion No. 90 ...... 7157 Mr. Riis...... 7125 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7157 Multilateral Agreement on Investment Motions Nos. 91 and 92 ...... 7157 Mr. Riis...... 7125 Mr. Riis...... 7157 Mr. Adams...... 7125 Motion No. 93...... 7157 Mr. Solberg...... 7157 Questions on the Order Paper Motions Nos. 94 to 96 inclusive ...... 7157 Mr. Adams...... 7126 Mr. Brison...... 7157 Mr. MacKay...... 7130 Motions Nos. 97 to 102 inclusive ...... 7157 Mr. Riis...... 7157 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska)...... 7157 Budget Implementation Act, 1998 Motion No. 103 ...... 7157 Motions Nos. 104 to 106 inclusive ...... 7158 Bill C–36. Report stage ...... 7130 Mr. Riis...... 7158 Mr. Dumas...... 7130 Motion No. 107 ...... 7158 Business of the House Mr. Solberg...... 7158 Ms. Catterall...... 7131 Motion No. 1 negatived ...... 7158 Motion ...... 7131 Ms. Catterall...... 7159 (Motion agreed to) ...... 7131 Mr. Strahl...... 7159 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7131 Ms. Catterall...... 7159 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7132 Mr. Strahl...... 7159 Mr. Bergeron...... 7159 Budget Implementation Act, 1998 Mr. Solomon...... 7160 Bill C–36. Report stage ...... 7132 Mr. Harvey...... 7160 Ms. Bulte...... 7132 Mr. Nunziata...... 7160 Mr. Mayfield...... 7133 Motion No. 2 negatived ...... 7160 Ms. Girard–Bujold...... 7135 Ms. Catterall...... 7161 Mr. Mahoney...... 7136 Mr. Solomon...... 7161 Mr. Mahoney...... 7137 Ms. Catterall...... 7161 Mr. Strahl...... 7137 Mr. Strahl...... 7161 Mr. Marchand...... 7139 Mr. Bergeron...... 7161 Mr. Williams...... 7140 Mr. Solomon...... 7161 Mrs. Guay...... 7141 Mr. Harvey...... 7161 Mr. Kenney...... 7143 Mr. Nunziata...... 7161 Mr. Lefebvre...... 7144 Motion No. 7 negatived ...... 7161 Mrs. Ablonczy...... 7145 Ms. Catterall...... 7162 Mr. Fournier...... 7147 Mr. Strahl...... 7162 Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)...... 7148 Mr. Bergeron...... 7162 Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)...... 7149 Mr. Solomon...... 7162 Mr. de Savoye...... 7149 Mr. Harvey...... 7162 Mr. Stinson...... 7151 Mr. Nunziata...... 7162 Mrs. Jennings...... 7152 Motion No. 11 negatived ...... 7162 Mr. Tremblay...... 7153 Ms. Catterall...... 7163 ...... Mr. Solberg 7155 Mr. Nunziata...... 7163 ...... Motion 7155 Motion No. 57 negatived ...... 7164 ...... (Motion agreed to) 7155 Ms. Catterall...... 7165 ...... Motions Nos. 68 and 69 7155 Mr. Strahl...... 7165 Mr. Riis...... 7155 Mr. Bergeron...... 7165 Motions Nos. 70 and 71 ...... 7155 Mr. Solomon...... 7165 Mr. Solberg...... 7155 Mr. Harvey...... 7165 Motions Nos. 72 and 73 ...... 7155 Mr. Nunziata...... 7165 Mr. Riis...... 7155 Motion No. 16 negatived ...... 7165 Motions Nos. 74 and 75 ...... 7155 Ms. Catterall...... 7166 Mr. Solberg...... 7155 Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 65, 66, 70, Motions Nos. 76 and 78 to 81 inclusive ...... 7156 107, 74 and 75 negatived ...... 7166 Mr. Riis...... 7156 Ms. Catterall...... 7166 Motions Nos. 82, 83 and 84 ...... 7156 Mr. Strahl...... 7166 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7156 Mr. Bergeron...... 7166 Motion No. 85 ...... 7156 Mr. Solomon...... 7166 Mr. Riis...... 7156 Mr. Harvey...... 7166 Motions Nos. 86, 87 and 88 ...... 7156 Mr. Nunziata...... 7166 Mrs. Gagnon...... 7156 Motion No. 67 negatived ...... 7166 Motion No. 89 ...... 7157 Ms. Catterall...... 7167 Mr. Brison...... 7157 Mr. Nunziata...... 7167 Ms. Catterall...... 7167 Mr. Bergeron...... 7175 Mr. Strahl...... 7167 Mr. Solomon...... 7175 Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)...... 7167 Mr. Harvey...... 7176 Mr. Bergeron...... 7167 Mr. Nunziata...... 7176 Mr. Solomon...... 7168 Motion No. 96 negatived ...... 7176 Mr. Harvey...... 7168 Motion for concurrence ...... 7177 Mr. Nunziata...... 7168 Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard)...... 7177 Motion No. 68 negatived ...... 7168 Ms. Catterall...... 7177 Ms. Catterall...... 7169 Mr. Strahl...... 7177 Mr. Strahl...... 7169 Mr. Bergeron...... 7177 Mr. Bergeron...... 7169 Mr. Solomon...... 7177 Mr. Solomon...... 7169 Mr. Harvey...... 7177 Mr. Harvey...... 7169 Mr. Nunziata...... 7177 Mr. Nunziata...... 7169 Motion agreed to ...... 7178 Ms. Catterall...... 7169 Canada Labour Code Motion No. 69 negatived ...... 7169 Bill C–19. Third reading ...... 7178 Ms. Catterall...... 7170 ...... Mr. Strahl...... 7170 Ms. Catterall 7178 ...... Mr. Bergeron...... 7170 Mr. Strahl 7178 Mr. Solomon...... 7170 Mr. Bergeron...... 7178 ...... Mr. Harvey...... 7170 Mr. Solomon 7178 Mr. Nunziata...... 7170 Mr. Harvey...... 7178 Motion No. 72 negatived ...... 7170 Mr. Nunziata...... 7178 Ms. Catterall...... 7171 (Bill read the third time and passed) ...... 7179 Mr. Strahl...... 7171 Mr. Bergeron...... 7172 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Mr. Solomon...... 7172 Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion Mr. Harvey...... 7172 Mr. Lincoln...... 7180 Mr. Nunziata...... 7172 Motion negatived ...... 7180 Motion No. 82 negatived ...... 7172 Ms. Catterall...... 7173 Criminal Code Mr. Strahl...... 7173 Bill C–247. Second reading ...... 7181 Mr. Bergeron...... 7173 (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee). . . 7182 Mr. Solomon...... 7173 National Head Start Program Mr. Harvey...... 7173 Motion...... 7182 Mr. Nunziata...... 7173 Amendment agreed to...... 7182 Motion No. 87 negatived ...... 7173 Motion as amended agreed to ...... 7183 Ms. Catterall...... 7174 Mr. Strahl...... 7174 Mr. Bergeron...... 7174 ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS Mr. Solomon...... 7174 Hepatitis C Mr. Harvey...... 7174 Mr. Thompson (Charlotte)...... 7184 Mr. Nunziata...... 7174 Mr. Nault...... 7184 Motion No. 89 negatived ...... 7174 Employment Insurance Reform Ms. Catterall...... 7175 Mr. Crête...... 7184 Mr. Strahl...... 7175 Mr. Nault...... 7185 MāāAāāIāāL PāOāSāTāE Canada Post Corporation/Société canadienne des postes Postage paid Port payé Lettermail Poste-lettre 03159442 Ottawa

If undelivered, return COVER ONLY to: Canadian Government Publishing, 45 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard, Hull, Québec, Canada, K1A 0S9

En cas de non-livraison, retourner cette COUVERTURE SEULEMENT à: Les Éditions du gouvernement du Canada, 45 boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Hull, Québec, Canada, K1A 0S9

Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

Publié en conformité de l'autorité du Président de la Chambre des communes

Also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: Aussi disponible sur le réseau électronique «Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire» à l'adresse suivante : http://www.parl.gc.ca

The Speaker of the House hereby grants permission to reproduce this document, in whole or in part, for use in schools and for other purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary. Any commercial or other use or reproduction of this publication requires the express prior written authorization of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Additional copies may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9

Le Président de la Chambre des communes accorde, par la présente, l'autorisation de reproduire la totalité ou une partie de ce document à des fins éducatives et à des fins d'étude privée, de recherche, de critique, de compte rendu ou en vue d'en préparer un résumé de journal. Toute reproduction de ce document à des fins commerciales ou autres nécessite l'obtention au préalable d'une autorisation écrite du Président. On peut obtenir des copies supplémentaires en écrivant à : Les Éditions du gouvernement du Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9 On peut obtenir la version française de cette publication en écrivant à Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada - Édition, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.